Notice I didn't set up graphical fidelity and voiceover dependency in opposition to game quality, which is indeed subjective and unmeasurable, but rather to systems complexity and content depth, which are measurable figures directly impacted by how the developer chooses to divide their production budget.
As a thought experiment, let's consider designing a theoretical game called The Axe Game, where you run around with an axe killing monsters, and you can make your character more powerful by finding more powerful axes. Let's say your axe diversity budget is $500. It's a 3D game, so the production cost of each axe object contains the cost of the 3D assets of the axe—$10—and some work commission for the item designers/writers—$5. Therefore each axe object costs $15 to make, so you can afford to produce 33 of them. Now let's say your investors got back to you after some preliminary testing and told you that you need to crank the graphics budget, so let's crank it. You'll need higher quality, more detailed texture and model work done, so now the 3D assets of each axe cost $20 to produce, raising the total cost of each axe object to $25, and therefore now you can only afford 20 axes. You can see how your focus on graphical fidelity directly affected your content depth.
If you look at the RPGs I've mentioned earlier, you can see this tendency for content decline play out on many different axles, but to stay relevant to the example I've raised above, let's take a look at the number of playable weapon types across Bethesda and BioWare fantasy games:
Baldur's Gate II has 27 weapon types, Dragon Age: Origins has 11, and Dragon Age: Inquisition has 10.
Morrowind has 24 weapon types, Oblivion has 13, and Skyrim has 9.
Does this prove a content or system decline in those games across the board? No, it's just one figure out of many. However, it does help illustrate the tendency I'm talking about, specifically in those games and franchises—you're of course welcome to draw your own comparisons.
Now whether this tendency bothers you will depend on your tastes and how you prefer to interact with the affected games. A light action-y game like Oblivion or Skyrim might be a fun romp and will probably entertain anyone for a few playthroughs, but it's not quite the same experience as a more complex CRPG like Daggerfall or Morrowind with their deep systems complexity and almost inexhaustible character designing combinations and role-playing possibilities.
If your level of obsession with any of those games doesn't quite reach the level where that abundance of details starts making a big difference, you might not appreciate what is lost when all those details are "streamlined" away. But to those of us who are into that sort of thing, such changes are by no means inconsequential.
Again, I think it's telling that your examples continue to rest on the Elder Scrolls series. I'd like to make a note that the series always has had something of a problem with being a mile wide and an inch deep. Though, again, you are right that the series has become more streamlined and/or simplistic, especially since Morrowind.
But it's just one game series. And I don't get why this point is being brought up apropos of BG3, which is already promising a far deeper set of systems than BG2. And even the OS games were arguably deeper, at least in terms of character building, than the BG games.
And if we're being honest, the BG games lacked a lot of complexity. Traps, melee combat, the stealth system, even much of the dialogue/roleplaying is all vastly outclassed by its successors. It's really the spell system that was complex. I'm not taking anything away from BG here, it was groundbreaking at its time. But it's obvious that character creation/progression is much more complex in Pathfinder. Dialogue, roleplaying, factions, and consequences are much more complex in Pillars. Dungeon puzzles and quest solving is much more complex in Original Sin. I mean, these are multiple examples, and don't even cover some other complex titles in the genre today like Wasteland 2, Numenera. Skyrim is just one game.
So - I have issues with some assumptions I think you're making:
For example - content of a game is frequently determined well in advance of the process of 3D rendering and graphics, and so it is rarely as simple as adjusting content depth against graphical expectations. What you're referring here is like if BG3 was in 2D and 5 acts long, and suddenly the developers decided to make it 3D and could only afford a 3 act game because of it.
In reality - BG3's content will likely already be largely determined in advance, within a margin of error, and the art assets will be generated to fit that expectation. The idea of what the game would look like is also already determined. The budget is set only after the studio puts in elaborate projections for bestcase/worst case scenarios on who it can hire and what kind of work can be done by those people. I would frequently assume that the department doesnt use its whole budget up front and saves some for reworks that the community desires (Like gnomes with giant noses).
Another assumption I have an issue with is that graphics in gaming is that there is a clear correlation between graphics "quality" and budget. Plenty of games attempt to use a graphical aesthetic that isnt photo realistic, but is instead meant to evoke a feeling or idea. Think of Borderlands or Breath of Wild. I'd argue both have excellent graphics, and both are not photorealistic. Did they spend a lot of their budget on cel shading? Not a lot? How can you tell?
If you have evidence to support the idea that Bethesda had a budget of X, spent Y on graphics and it led to there only being 9 weapon choices - I'd love to see it. My guess it, it doesnt exist. Instead it looks to me like you're mistaking correlation for causation: e.g - Skyrim looks better than Morrowwind. Skyrim's gameplay is less deep than Morrowind's. Ergo -Skyrim spent more money on graphics than gameplay.
I do not have info about other games, but I´m 100% sure that the progressive simplification in Bethesda games over time is a deliberate design choice of the devs, unrelated to budget and other matters.
And if we're being honest, the BG games lacked a lot of complexity. Traps, melee combat, the stealth system, even much of the dialogue/roleplaying is all vastly outclassed by its successors. It's really the spell system that was complex. I'm not taking anything away from BG here, it was groundbreaking at its time. But it's obvious that character creation/progression is much more complex in Pathfinder. Dialogue, roleplaying, factions, and consequences are much more complex in Pillars. Dungeon puzzles and quest solving is much more complex in Original Sin. I mean, these are multiple examples, and don't even cover some other complex titles in the genre today like Wasteland 2, Numenera. Skyrim is just one game.
Yet I played all those games and I legitimately think Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 are better than all of them.
I also don't think any single one of those games actually tops the rest in any single area and you kind of lay that out. You're also ignoring some criticisms that those new games deserve like:
Pillars: Nonsensical stats system, weak itemisation, small number of recruitable NPCs, gameplay mechanics outside of combat actually being less powerful than what Baldur's Gate allows for. The faction system in Pillars 1 isn't really well built or integrated into the story, it is in Deadfire but Deadfire has a whole litany of problems with its design and is a much worse game than the first one in my opinion.
Pathfinder: They did do a pretty good job of the character creation and progression but their game design is pretty terrible across the board, I really tried but I think the game is incredibly boring and lacking when it comes to storytelling and is also prone to just bad pacing and storytelling mechanics that can ruin a playthrough.
Divinity: The combat system I think is weak and basic, the storytelling in both games is completely mediocre, I don't know why you seriously think the dungeon puzzles are worth bringing up as they're laughable by the standards of any real puzzle games and are largely wasted effort.
So no, I think what you said had some truth in parts, but the actual comparisons are far more mixed than you've made it seem, and honestly in terms of videogame design some choices Bioware made in the Baldur's Gate games were good ideas, some simplifications made for a better videogame experience. You want to see a game not learn that lesson, that's Pathfinder Kingmaker.
Note I'm taking great care not to generalize, so you shouldn't interpret my statements in any wider a context than what I said. A tendency can affect some games and not affect others.
I dont see any reason to believe that having good graphics or impressive animations means anything other than that those things were well done.
My responses are mostly about how there is a necessary relationship between graphics and voiceover considerations and gameplay content and systems, and that those considerations had a role in significantly changing some series and franchises in the past. It doesn't really say anything profound about BG3 or any of the games I haven't specifically brought up in these responses (other than their graphics, voiceover and gameplay aspects being linked on a budgetary level, obviously).
I do not have info about other games, but I´m 100% sure that the progressive simplification in Bethesda games over time is a deliberate design choice of the devs, unrelated to budget and other matters.
Note I'm taking great care not to generalize, so you shouldn't interpret my statements in any wider a context than what I said. A tendency can affect some games and not affect others.
I dont see any reason to believe that having good graphics or impressive animations means anything other than that those things were well done.
My responses are mostly about how there is a necessary relationship between graphics and voiceover considerations and gameplay content and systems, and that those considerations had a role in significantly changing some series and franchises in the past. It doesn't really say anything profound about BG3 or any of the games I haven't specifically brought up in these responses (other than their graphics, voiceover and gameplay aspects being linked on a budgetary level, obviously).
I guess that's fair, but you also made up your own example - "The Axe Game", which I took to be a generalized stand in for your point writ large. Was that supposed to be applicable only to a particular game? If not, that seems like a generalization - which why I had issues with it.
And if we're being honest, the BG games lacked a lot of complexity. Traps, melee combat, the stealth system, even much of the dialogue/roleplaying is all vastly outclassed by its successors. It's really the spell system that was complex. I'm not taking anything away from BG here, it was groundbreaking at its time. But it's obvious that character creation/progression is much more complex in Pathfinder. Dialogue, roleplaying, factions, and consequences are much more complex in Pillars. Dungeon puzzles and quest solving is much more complex in Original Sin. I mean, these are multiple examples, and don't even cover some other complex titles in the genre today like Wasteland 2, Numenera. Skyrim is just one game.
Yet I played all those games and I legitimately think Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 are better than all of them.
....
As I said in a post above, I'm not arguing that any of these games are better than BG. But they are undeniably more complex, have more choices for the player.
And even the OS games were arguably deeper, at least in terms of character building, than the BG games.
2e was indeed very limited in its options and depth for character building, but the OS games were most certainly not deeper. They are among the most shallow and simplistic in character building among modern games.
As I said in a post above, I'm not arguing that any of these games are better than BG. But they are undeniably more complex, have more choices for the player.
And I would say as a broad generalisation, I don't think its is correct and sells some aspects of BG1 and 2 rather short. You can isolate examples but, really, if anything my whole feeling on those games you mentioned is general disappointment at the lack of progression over 20 year old games, in certain areas they are worse and less sophisticated. It's not really a simple matter but I will acknowledge all those games tried to build further on different areas with rather mixed success I think.
If any of them had actually offered strong storytelling it would make up for a lot, but well, I really think for different reasons with each one that they all failed to match Baldur's Gate in that area, an area which isn't about gameplay mechanics or about systems, only skill at the art of it.
The Shadowrun games had that in spades though, and were easily the best of the crop for me.
Note I'm taking great care not to generalize, so you shouldn't interpret my statements in any wider a context than what I said. A tendency can affect some games and not affect others.
I dont see any reason to believe that having good graphics or impressive animations means anything other than that those things were well done.
My responses are mostly about how there is a necessary relationship between graphics and voiceover considerations and gameplay content and systems, and that those considerations had a role in significantly changing some series and franchises in the past. It doesn't really say anything profound about BG3 or any of the games I haven't specifically brought up in these responses (other than their graphics, voiceover and gameplay aspects being linked on a budgetary level, obviously).
I guess that's fair, but you also made up your own example - "The Axe Game", which I took to be a generalized stand in for your point writ large. Was that supposed to be applicable only to a particular game? If not, that seems like a generalization - which why I had issues with it.
It was a generalized stand-in for my larger point, which is that typical game marketing considerations involve the gaming industry's creeping graphical fidelity standards, and in most genres also voice-over standards, both of which have a direct effect on how much gameplay content and systems depth can be afforded from the game's budget.
In my thought experiment this was illustrated by a pre-production change in game design based on feedback from the investors (which is a thing that happens), but it doesn't always pan out like that. As you pointed out, it can be the case, especially if the game designer/director/producer/whatever is experienced at their job, that they can divide their production budget right from the start in a way that would satisfy the investors and also help market the game effectively. However, that doesn't mean that marketing considerations didn't influence their decisions, on the contrary. It means that they included those considerations into their budget planning right from the start.
Again, this doesn't mean that every game/franchise is getting worse, or anything general like that. It just means that these things are linked, and as the gaming industry's graphical fidelity and voiceover standards increase, so does the budgetary strain on gameplay. This is a difficulty that developers have to deal with, and sometimes it means that some series and franchises get simplified over time, or they get reworked to appeal to a wider audience.
As I said in a post above, I'm not arguing that any of these games are better than BG. But they are undeniably more complex, have more choices for the player.
And I would say as a broad generalisation, I don't think its is correct and sells some aspects of BG1 and 2 rather short. You can isolate examples but, really, if anything my whole feeling on those games you mentioned is general disappointment at the lack of progression over 20 year old games, in certain areas they are worse and less sophisticated. It's not really a simple matter but I will acknowledge all those games tried to build further on different areas with rather mixed success I think.
If any of them had actually offered strong storytelling it would make up for a lot, but well, I really think for different reasons with each one that they all failed to match Baldur's Gate in that area, an area which isn't about gameplay mechanics or about systems, only skill at the art of it.
The Shadowrun games had that in spades though, and were easily the best of the crop for me.
ehh, there's very little choice in the quests in the BG series, for just one example. Let's be honest. There's very very few multi-solution or different outcome quests in BG1. The sparse choice & consequences is limited -- the bhaalspawn powers, the handful of sidequests. Most everything is kill the baddie or fetch the item. I have to say, I don't like the fact that you're eschewing examples in your post and instead relying on a generalized "i didn't like this".
Even in BG2, there's very little in the way of quest, dialogue or roleplaying complexity. There's one big decision, sure, but it's made in the final moment and has zero complex interactions with the gameplay. Most of the big quests, even the complex stronghold quests, are linear, combat oriented, and when they do offer multiple solutions, it's never more than two.
And your focus on storytelling is, I think, off topic from the original points I wrote about and that Adul wrote about. So I dunno, seems like you're using the new discussion as a pretext to launch a series of grievances or general comparison about the quality of these games versus BG. That wasn't my intention. For me the BG series is also still more fun than any of these games. But it is not more complex.
Again, in terms of combat, dialogue, character building, quest solving, all these games offer greater complexity, greater choice than the IE games. If anything, I think the fact that BG is more simplified, offers fewer choices, and yet is still more fun than these games belies some of the points Adul is making, and bolsters some of what Ballpointman has said. Simplicity could also be called elegance, and I think it has its advantages.
And even the OS games were arguably deeper, at least in terms of character building, than the BG games.
2e was indeed very limited in its options and depth for character building, but the OS games were most certainly not deeper. They are among the most shallow and simplistic in character building among modern games.
This is simply not true. The point system for skills offers far more choice than the BG games did and an infinite number of party compositions. You may not have liked that system, but it's undeniably more complex than BG's leveling. The choices for leveling in BG are limited to spell choice (and only for a few classes), weapon proficiencies and thief skills (and again only a few classes). It's not until HLA's that you're actually making important choices -- and even there, there's such an imbalance among them that there's not much of a choice for veterans, imo.
I mean, as a fighter you make one choice and only one choice every three level ups. It's a grand total of two choices in the *entire first game*. I don't understand how anyone can say that is more complex than original sin where you're distributing stat points, skills points and perks.
And it's not like character creation in BG is complex either. Experienced players know the dump stats for classes, there's very little agonizing choice there. Sure, multi classing and dual classing offers some greater complexity -- the most available in the IE games -- but OS has multi classing option as well.
And even the OS games were arguably deeper, at least in terms of character building, than the BG games.
2e was indeed very limited in its options and depth for character building, but the OS games were most certainly not deeper. They are among the most shallow and simplistic in character building among modern games.
This is simply not true. The point system for skills offers far more choice than the BG games did and an infinite number of party compositions. You may not have liked that system, but it's undeniably more complex than BG's leveling. The choices for leveling in BG are limited to spell choice (and only for a few classes), weapon proficiencies and thief skills (and again only a few classes). It's not until HLA's that you're actually making important choices -- and even there, there's such an imbalance among them that there's not much of a choice for veterans, imo.
I mean, as a fighter you make one choice and only one choice every three level ups. It's a grand total of two choices in the *entire first game*. I don't understand how anyone can say that is more complex than original sin where you're distributing stat points, skills points and perks.
And it's not like character creation in BG is complex either. Experienced players know the dump stats for classes, there's very little agonizing choice there. Sure, multi classing and dual classing offers some greater complexity -- the most available in the IE games -- but OS has multi classing option as well.
Except that all """"building"""" on DOS2 pales i comparison to the gear usage.
And guess what; things on BG2 makes way more sense than on DOS2. Your fighter with 15 STR will NOT be able to use the best longbows which require 18 STR. Companions with 16 INT needs potions or other buffs to learn high tier magic.
And dump stat a problem? What is the solution to this (non) problem? Wizards with low INT being optimal for certain builds despite the game's lore determining that wizards are intellectuals like Pillars 1/2? Keep in mind that events on the story mostly on chapters 4 and 7 can give unique stats, positive and negative to your character.
And that you have way more variety with spellcasting on BG2 and weapons on BG2 than on DOS2. Choosing your spells in a game with over 300 spells or your spell specialization is far more impactful than anything on dos2. DOS2 items are mostly stat stickie items. On BG2, you can find a weapon which is +3, so can damage liches but not the demon lord, that steal life on enemy and has a chance of making then run in fear. This is far more interesting than finding a item that inflates a artificial inflated number by replacing by another artificial inflated number.
Attributes on BG2 makes a lot of sense. Where 25 is the peak godlike, 10 is average human, and 18 peak human capabilities. Creatures with more than 18 INT are Giants, Dragons and so on. Nizidramanii'yt has his STATS in about 20s, stats for legendary dragons.. Armor mechanics on BG2 also makes way more sense. Your full plate armor for eg, is far more likely to deflect a sword than a mace. And enemy resistances too. Makes sense that a zombie will be more vulnerable to slashing while a skeleton to blunt weapons.
And that you have way more variety with spellcasting on BG2 and weapons on BG2 than on DOS2. Choosing your spells in a game with over 300 spells or your spell specialization is far more impactful than anything on dos2. DOS2 items are mostly stat stickie items. On BG2, you can find a weapon which is +3, so can damage liches but not the demon lord, that steal life on enemy and has a chance of making then run in fear. This is far more interesting than finding a item that inflates a artificial inflated number by replacing by another artificial inflated number.
....
I think a great deal of your post is an inaccurate characterization of OS, and it strikes me as perhaps commentary from someone who did not play very deep into the game. It's absolutely true that you're trading gear constantly in the first half of the game for stuff that has better primary stats. But this is absolutely not the case in the later game. As well, what you praised about BG: the monster immunities, the things like life leech and on-hit abilities -- those all exist in OS! It's crazy to me to write that comparison as if they do not exist. Damage immunities are a huge part of the OS series, arguably more than even in BG, certainly more than BG1.
And again, I want to key in on this word "artificial". Why is it not artificial that monsters have a freaking number based weapon immunity?
And even the OS games were arguably deeper, at least in terms of character building, than the BG games.
2e was indeed very limited in its options and depth for character building, but the OS games were most certainly not deeper. They are among the most shallow and simplistic in character building among modern games.
I mean, as a fighter you make one choice and only one choice every three level ups. It's a grand total of two choices in the *entire first game*. I don't understand how anyone can say that is more complex than original sin where you're distributing stat points, skills points and perks.
And it's not like character creation in BG is complex either. Experienced players know the dump stats for classes, there's very little agonizing choice there. Sure, multi classing and dual classing offers some greater complexity -- the most available in the IE games -- but OS has multi classing option as well.
I already said that 2e left a lot to be desired in terms of character building. But the OS games' "complexity" was illusory and superficial. Yes you got to do some allocating of stat points, skill points, etc., but those allocations did not do much to develop your character. It just gave you the illusion of character building. All characters ended up being pretty much the same, and for both your PC and all companions there was always a formulaic optimal build - one way to allocate those points that was "best." As such, you may as well have had the AI do the level up allocating for you because any "choices" you made had negligible consequences.
And as for "multiclassing," no, D:OS is a classless system. Classes exist but they're fake and meaningless. So the system essentially pretends to have classes but all the classes are functionally the same.
Not to be the devil´s advocate, but the classes are only the name for preset characters. You can even edit those presets in character creation UI.
I absolutely prefer D&D to the CC of DoS games but if we are talking only about character creation they allow freedom to choose any stat, ability or skill for your character, so technically that´s more complex than a predetermined class/multiclass with fixed features obtained per level.
You want a summoner that throws volleys of arrows with a bow? or a healer that throws fireballs? a rogue that teleports enemies? A fighter with a magic staff that can grow wings and turn himself into stone? A necromancer that set exploding traps in the battlefield and summon bone spiders?
You got it.
Not to be the devil´s advocate, but the classes are only the name for preset characters. You can even edit those presets in character creation UI.
I absolutely prefer D&D to the CC of DoS games but if we are talking only about character creation they allow freedom to choose any stat, ability or skill for your character, so technically that´s more complex than a predetermined class/multiclass with fixed features obtained per level.
You want a summoner that throws volleys of arrows with a bow? or a healer that throws fireballs? a rogue that teleports enemies? A fighter with a magic staff that can grow wings and turn himself into stone? A necromancer that set exploding traps in the battlefield and summon bone spiders?
You got it.
But that's exactly it. I agree with this description. The difference is that whereas you want to label this as complexity, for me this is exactly the opposite of complexity. Having restrictions and conditions and having to work within those restrictions and conditions is complexity. Everything goes with everything is the appearance of complexity but is in fact superficiality. All of those allocations of stats, abilities, and skills eventually just lead to sameness across all your characters and any "choices" you make with your character building/development ultimately just don't matter. Coming from a D&D background, whenever I play an RPG I write up lengthy, detailed character development guide notes for myself to use as I level up my characters. With D:OS, after about level 5, I realized putting in all that work was a waste of my time because my choices really did not matter, and so I discarded my notes and just started picking whatever. Made no difference at all by the end of the game.
Oh yeah, it´s a little awkward to rp a background if your character could be anything.
That said, I do not think I agree with the "sameness" or "choices you make with your character don´t matter" depiction. I mean, a rogue that can fly and teleport things and a necromancer that set exploding traps and summon spiders have zero resemblance in skills, abilities, equipment, role in the party and in the way you play it, possible backstory etc no matter how you want to see it.
And that you have way more variety with spellcasting on BG2 and weapons on BG2 than on DOS2. Choosing your spells in a game with over 300 spells or your spell specialization is far more impactful than anything on dos2. DOS2 items are mostly stat stickie items. On BG2, you can find a weapon which is +3, so can damage liches but not the demon lord, that steal life on enemy and has a chance of making then run in fear. This is far more interesting than finding a item that inflates a artificial inflated number by replacing by another artificial inflated number.
....
I think a great deal of your post is an inaccurate characterization of OS, and it strikes me as perhaps commentary from someone who did not play very deep into the game. It's absolutely true that you're trading gear constantly in the first half of the game for stuff that has better primary stats. But this is absolutely not the case in the later game. As well, what you praised about BG: the monster immunities, the things like life leech and on-hit abilities -- those all exist in OS! It's crazy to me to write that comparison as if they do not exist. Damage immunities are a huge part of the OS series, arguably more than even in BG, certainly more than BG1.
And again, I want to key in on this word "artificial". Why is it not artificial that monsters have a freaking number based weapon immunity?
Is not "just a number based weapon immunity".
On D&D, cold damage and magical cold are two different things. Same with weapons. Werewolves for eg, has resistances against non magical weapons and it make sense. You need magical weapon to hurt magical creatures.
Did you watched berserk? Gut's Dragonslayer could hurt strong supernatural creatures because being used to cut a lot of lower supernatural makes the sword supernatural. His cannon dealt no damage on a certain "high level" enemy.
As for "constant trading gear", I HATE it. If i can't beat the game naked, the game is too gear dependent to my taste.
And progression on DOS2 is mostly number inflation. Look to for EG baldur's gate 2. You as a lv 1 necromancer can't even raise the dead, can only use very timid necromancer spells that draws just 4 points of hp at max, at lv 5, can create skull traps and use it to deal nasty damage and summon your first low level monsters. Around lv 10, you now finally can raise undead and have skeleton servants. You are finally a fully fledged necromancer. At lv 18+ you can stop the time, can chain cast on a chain contigency with 2 lower resist and a greater malison to destroy magical defenses while you stop tge time, casts wail of the banshee slaying an army or even casts many finger of the death and have like over 90% of chances of OHKilling a dragon before the time starts again. You are finally a fully master of life and death.
On DoS2? A Single summon limit from the beginning to the end and mostly the same skills only with greater damage numbers.
Sure, BG2(D&D) could gave the same great progression to martial classes too, so a grand master of axe fighting can use a decapitation, can infuse his axe with magical energies and have some things based on Overlord "martial arts".
Not to be the devil´s advocate, but the classes are only the name for preset characters. You can even edit those presets in character creation UI.
I absolutely prefer D&D to the CC of DoS games but if we are talking only about character creation they allow freedom to choose any stat, ability or skill for your character, so technically that´s more complex than a predetermined class/multiclass with fixed features obtained per level.
You want a summoner that throws volleys of arrows with a bow? or a healer that throws fireballs? a rogue that teleports enemies? A fighter with a magic staff that can grow wings and turn himself into stone? A necromancer that set exploding traps in the battlefield and summon bone spiders?
You got it.
You can but having skills that target magical armor and skills that targets normal armor would not be optimal on dos2...
If we go the simplistic route, you can also say that we have spells that are resisted by magic resistance and spells that do not in PF... even tho there are +100 spells with different characteristics.
Different abilities have distinct areas of effect, damage type and range; causes dissimilar debuffs, react differently against diverse monsters, have different cooldown, causes distinctive reactions in several elemental surfaces, etc etc
A simple magic system is the one in TES games, dungeon siege, etc: You`re casting the same 5 spells with different names for 100 levels.
And the same effect can be vastly different. Levitation to levitate 5 pts for 10 seconds and for 100 pts for 10 seconds are vastly different spells. You can even fail on casting a spell, it just waste mana, would be cooler if for eg, the fireball explodes into the caster's hands. Combining spells and crafting custom spells on morrowind is also epic.
But IMO even Skyrim which has the WEAKEST magic of all TES games not considering ESO, where you spend 99% of the using the same spell(fire bolt is the most mana efficient and with a perk can stunlock enemies to death, is only not optimal vs Flame Atronach ), is better than managing artificial timers(cooldowns). On Morrowind, you will not become the game conjuring Gold Saints and Storm Atronach. Even if you learn the spell, you will have like 2% chance of casting...
You can also enchant items. Which has no casting animation, so you can for eg, make a spell which deals X frost damage in a second and inflicts X weakness to frost and Y, but fire this spell fast as you click. There are so many cool stuff that a magician can make on morrowind. You can even exploit the game by casting levitation 1 on NPC's and seeing their AI doing all types of crazy stuff.
One thing that I DON'T UNDERSTAND, is people who complain "except by mirror image, most low level spells become useless on baldur's gate". I just don't see the problem. In fact, a evoker starting his carrer able to cast burning hands, then fireball, then dealyed blast fireball and finally, high level spells like incendiary cloud and meteor swarm is so cool. It represents the progression of the mage. Just like a .45-70 rifle is better for hunting boars than a 22 lr(a amazing cartridge to teach people how to use firearms since is cheap and has little to no recoil but is not the best to hunt large animals), burning hands being a starting spell is GOOD.
And the same happens with weapons for fighters. Your fighter who started with a rusty dagger and a shortbow will not end the game with this weapon, he will probably has a good magical weapon that causes a lot of nasty effects.
And if we're being honest, the BG games lacked a lot of complexity. Traps, melee combat, the stealth system, even much of the dialogue/roleplaying is all vastly outclassed by its successors. It's really the spell system that was complex. I'm not taking anything away from BG here, it was groundbreaking at its time. But it's obvious that character creation/progression is much more complex in Pathfinder. Dialogue, roleplaying, factions, and consequences are much more complex in Pillars. Dungeon puzzles and quest solving is much more complex in Original Sin. I mean, these are multiple examples, and don't even cover some other complex titles in the genre today like Wasteland 2, Numenera. Skyrim is just one game.
Yet I played all those games and I legitimately think Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 are better than all of them.
I also don't think any single one of those games actually tops the rest in any single area and you kind of lay that out. You're also ignoring some criticisms that those new games deserve like:
Pillars: Nonsensical stats system, weak itemisation, small number of recruitable NPCs, gameplay mechanics outside of combat actually being less powerful than what Baldur's Gate allows for. The faction system in Pillars 1 isn't really well built or integrated into the story, it is in Deadfire but Deadfire has a whole litany of problems with its design and is a much worse game than the first one in my opinion.
Pathfinder: They did do a pretty good job of the character creation and progression but their game design is pretty terrible across the board, I really tried but I think the game is incredibly boring and lacking when it comes to storytelling and is also prone to just bad pacing and storytelling mechanics that can ruin a playthrough.
Divinity: The combat system I think is weak and basic, the storytelling in both games is completely mediocre, I don't know why you seriously think the dungeon puzzles are worth bringing up as they're laughable by the standards of any real puzzle games and are largely wasted effort.
So no, I think what you said had some truth in parts, but the actual comparisons are far more mixed than you've made it seem, and honestly in terms of videogame design some choices Bioware made in the Baldur's Gate games were good ideas, some simplifications made for a better videogame experience. You want to see a game not learn that lesson, that's Pathfinder Kingmaker.
This is an interesting analysis of the problems with the games you mention, @hybridial . You've managed to identify some of the reasons I didn't like or couldn't keep myself motivated to finish or replay these titles, when I usually struggle to "put my finger on it" or identify why. I should be the expected target audience for Pillars, Pathfinder, and Divinity, yet I had responses ranging from lukewarm to outright disliking all those titles.
Sometimes I would find initial excitement or enjoyment in them, which would quickly die down and settle into disinterest, if not active dislike. Thank you for a very insightful post.
Not to be the devil´s advocate, but the classes are only the name for preset characters. You can even edit those presets in character creation UI.
I absolutely prefer D&D to the CC of DoS games but if we are talking only about character creation they allow freedom to choose any stat, ability or skill for your character, so technically that´s more complex than a predetermined class/multiclass with fixed features obtained per level.
You want a summoner that throws volleys of arrows with a bow? or a healer that throws fireballs? a rogue that teleports enemies? A fighter with a magic staff that can grow wings and turn himself into stone? A necromancer that set exploding traps in the battlefield and summon bone spiders?
You got it.
That's a really *bad* thing to me. "When everyone is super, no one is."
This is an interesting analysis of the problems with the games you mention, @hybridial . You've managed to identify some of the reasons I didn't like or couldn't keep myself motivated to finish or replay these titles, when I usually struggle to "put my finger on it" or identify why. I should be the expected target audience for Pillars, Pathfinder, and Divinity, yet I had responses ranging from lukewarm to outright disliking all those titles.
Sometimes I would find initial excitement or enjoyment in them, which would quickly die down and settle into disinterest, if not active dislike. Thank you for a very insightful post.
Yes, they all had a common problem in their storytelling, which I would say is a lack of urgency and a lack of personal motivation. I think its perhaps underestimated just how important the writing was to Baldur's Gate long term success, it may not be Planescape Torment by any means (I assume, I've still to play that actually but I will soon) but its well judged in giving the player emotional engagement and wanting to see the journey through to the end. It has an epic feel none of those newer games matched for me. I think with Pillars its a personal involvement issue (especially in Deadfire where you have no real say at the end on much of anything), in Divinity it's a tonal problem and the fact its storyline was passe, and in Pathfinder the early story is kind of just there mostly and things like how long it takes to trawl the world map and how important things can be locked behind skill checks and how obscure the game's story progression often is.
I think all of them kind of failed to understand that Adventure is why people play these kind of CRPGs and they all got it wrong in different ways.
I'd probably add that out of those, I feel I might try to give Pathfinder another chance because the gameplay is pretty solid, but, there's other stuff that does put me off when I think about them, like how utterly bland its graphics and dungeon designs are. Outdoor areas are okay but interiors remind me of Neverwinter Nights, and that's an awful thing.
This is an interesting analysis of the problems with the games you mention, @hybridial . You've managed to identify some of the reasons I didn't like or couldn't keep myself motivated to finish or replay these titles, when I usually struggle to "put my finger on it" or identify why. I should be the expected target audience for Pillars, Pathfinder, and Divinity, yet I had responses ranging from lukewarm to outright disliking all those titles.
Sometimes I would find initial excitement or enjoyment in them, which would quickly die down and settle into disinterest, if not active dislike. Thank you for a very insightful post.
Yes, they all had a common problem in their storytelling, which I would say is a lack of urgency and a lack of personal motivation. I think its perhaps underestimated just how important the writing was to Baldur's Gate long term success, it may not be Planescape Torment by any means (I assume, I've still to play that actually but I will soon) but its well judged in giving the player emotional engagement and wanting to see the journey through to the end. It has an epic feel none of those newer games matched for me. I think with Pillars its a personal involvement issue (especially in Deadfire where you have no real say at the end on much of anything), in Divinity it's a tonal problem and the fact its storyline was passe, and in Pathfinder the early story is kind of just there mostly and things like how long it takes to trawl the world map and how important things can be locked behind skill checks and how obscure the game's story progression often is.
I think all of them kind of failed to understand that Adventure is why people play these kind of CRPGs and they all got it wrong in different ways.
I'd probably add that out of those, I feel I might try to give Pathfinder another chance because the gameplay is pretty solid, but, there's other stuff that does put me off when I think about them, like how utterly bland its graphics and dungeon designs are. Outdoor areas are okay but interiors remind me of Neverwinter Nights, and that's an awful thing.
I think you guys are viewing the old IE games, and especially the BG games, through rose-tinted glasses. Many of those criticisms you have of games like Pillars and Pathfinder can also be made of the old BG games, and some of the criticisms I would reject as unfair or inaccurate. The truth is that the old IE games were full of bad design choices and a host of other problems. But when those games first came out 20 years ago, there were no other games out there like them. They were a new experience. Something profoundly different in how videogames are played and how a player engages with the game. So we all were very content to ignore and overlook the problems and weaknesses and simply enjoy the games for what they were. And even now, 20 years later, many are still content to remain blind to those weaknesses out of a sense of nostalgia. But with new games in the same genre and style being made today, none of us are willing to be that accepting and are much more into viewing those games with a critical eye, even an overly and unfairly critical eye and going so far as to be nitpicky with criticisms, because those games are plentiful and commonplace and no longer a shiny and new experience.
I think you guys are viewing the old IE games, and especially the BG games, through rose-tinted glasses.
No.
I've played all of these games a lot over the past 2-3 years and I stand by everything I said. These are direct comparisons.
You don't have many places to take your argument when you insist we think the way we do because of nostalgia, its hardly showing respect. There are problems in the Baldur's Gate games, they are not, nor ever were perfect products. I was never saying that.
But those other, newer titles I simply found to not be very good. Might not be as cut and dry than, say, why Bethesda Fallout is absolutely horrible compared to Fallout 1 and 2 if you go in expecting anything remotely like what Fallout was, but, they simply failed in key areas. And writing quality in particularly, has nothing to do with age.
I think you guys are viewing the old IE games, and especially the BG games, through rose-tinted glasses.
No.
I've played all of these games a lot over the past 2-3 years and I stand by everything I said. These are direct comparisons.
You don't have many places to take your argument when you insist we think the way we do because of nostalgia, its hardly showing respect. There are problems in the Baldur's Gate games, they are not, nor ever were perfect products. I was never saying that.
But those other, newer titles I simply found to not be very good. Might not be as cut and dry than, say, why Bethesda Fallout is absolutely horrible compared to Fallout 1 and 2 if you go in expecting anything remotely like what Fallout was, but, they simply failed in key areas. And writing quality in particularly, has nothing to do with age.
First of all, don't play the "respect" card on me. Nothing I said was in any way disrespectful towards anyone.
As for your arguments about the newer titles, many others did find them to be good games, and for some people way better games than the old games. And writing quality specifically, I have many issues with the writing and even story of the BG games, including specifically BG2. For example, I find Chris Avellone to be highly overrated as a writer. His writing is tedious and pedantic. Neither you nor I are automatically right or wrong. We each have our perspective. So I completely stand by what I've said.
First of all, don't play the "respect" card on me. Nothing I said was in any way disrespectful towards anyone.
"I don't agree with you, so you must be biased in some manner (nostalgia) and and by that I'm implying your points lack validity."
When it gets to that, I don't feel particularly respected, and don't tell me that isn't accurate to what you said because that is what you said.
And "other people like x" is hardly much of a point either, if you really think those games have better writing than Baldur's Gate, how about you explain why you think that? Because that's definitely the most consistent issue I had with those games with aspects of the writing simply giving me reasons to stop playing rather than continue playing. Most of your arguments about those games being more complex in other areas is sporadically true, but nothing that made those games holistically better or even good in some cases, and BG2 at least often did offer quite a lot of choice in how you complete some of its quests, granted the majority of them didn't have much impact on the story, but I really cannot remember anything in Pillars 1 or 2 having much of an impact in the end either, because Obsidian pretty much insisted on Pillars of Eternity never even really being about the protagonist.
And none of these games specifically had Fallout's quest design complexity either, which I bring up just because the age of these games isn't all that relevant to the quality of their content design, that's decided more by what they decided to focus on, and maybe Wasteland 2 kinda was like that, but none of the others were. Obsidian's best work of that nature was definitely in Fallout New Vegas and not in the Pillars games.
Comments
As a thought experiment, let's consider designing a theoretical game called The Axe Game, where you run around with an axe killing monsters, and you can make your character more powerful by finding more powerful axes. Let's say your axe diversity budget is $500. It's a 3D game, so the production cost of each axe object contains the cost of the 3D assets of the axe—$10—and some work commission for the item designers/writers—$5. Therefore each axe object costs $15 to make, so you can afford to produce 33 of them. Now let's say your investors got back to you after some preliminary testing and told you that you need to crank the graphics budget, so let's crank it. You'll need higher quality, more detailed texture and model work done, so now the 3D assets of each axe cost $20 to produce, raising the total cost of each axe object to $25, and therefore now you can only afford 20 axes. You can see how your focus on graphical fidelity directly affected your content depth.
If you look at the RPGs I've mentioned earlier, you can see this tendency for content decline play out on many different axles, but to stay relevant to the example I've raised above, let's take a look at the number of playable weapon types across Bethesda and BioWare fantasy games:
Baldur's Gate II has 27 weapon types, Dragon Age: Origins has 11, and Dragon Age: Inquisition has 10.
Morrowind has 24 weapon types, Oblivion has 13, and Skyrim has 9.
Does this prove a content or system decline in those games across the board? No, it's just one figure out of many. However, it does help illustrate the tendency I'm talking about, specifically in those games and franchises—you're of course welcome to draw your own comparisons.
Now whether this tendency bothers you will depend on your tastes and how you prefer to interact with the affected games. A light action-y game like Oblivion or Skyrim might be a fun romp and will probably entertain anyone for a few playthroughs, but it's not quite the same experience as a more complex CRPG like Daggerfall or Morrowind with their deep systems complexity and almost inexhaustible character designing combinations and role-playing possibilities.
If your level of obsession with any of those games doesn't quite reach the level where that abundance of details starts making a big difference, you might not appreciate what is lost when all those details are "streamlined" away. But to those of us who are into that sort of thing, such changes are by no means inconsequential.
But it's just one game series. And I don't get why this point is being brought up apropos of BG3, which is already promising a far deeper set of systems than BG2. And even the OS games were arguably deeper, at least in terms of character building, than the BG games.
And if we're being honest, the BG games lacked a lot of complexity. Traps, melee combat, the stealth system, even much of the dialogue/roleplaying is all vastly outclassed by its successors. It's really the spell system that was complex. I'm not taking anything away from BG here, it was groundbreaking at its time. But it's obvious that character creation/progression is much more complex in Pathfinder. Dialogue, roleplaying, factions, and consequences are much more complex in Pillars. Dungeon puzzles and quest solving is much more complex in Original Sin. I mean, these are multiple examples, and don't even cover some other complex titles in the genre today like Wasteland 2, Numenera. Skyrim is just one game.
For example - content of a game is frequently determined well in advance of the process of 3D rendering and graphics, and so it is rarely as simple as adjusting content depth against graphical expectations. What you're referring here is like if BG3 was in 2D and 5 acts long, and suddenly the developers decided to make it 3D and could only afford a 3 act game because of it.
In reality - BG3's content will likely already be largely determined in advance, within a margin of error, and the art assets will be generated to fit that expectation. The idea of what the game would look like is also already determined. The budget is set only after the studio puts in elaborate projections for bestcase/worst case scenarios on who it can hire and what kind of work can be done by those people. I would frequently assume that the department doesnt use its whole budget up front and saves some for reworks that the community desires (Like gnomes with giant noses).
Another assumption I have an issue with is that graphics in gaming is that there is a clear correlation between graphics "quality" and budget. Plenty of games attempt to use a graphical aesthetic that isnt photo realistic, but is instead meant to evoke a feeling or idea. Think of Borderlands or Breath of Wild. I'd argue both have excellent graphics, and both are not photorealistic. Did they spend a lot of their budget on cel shading? Not a lot? How can you tell?
If you have evidence to support the idea that Bethesda had a budget of X, spent Y on graphics and it led to there only being 9 weapon choices - I'd love to see it. My guess it, it doesnt exist. Instead it looks to me like you're mistaking correlation for causation: e.g - Skyrim looks better than Morrowwind. Skyrim's gameplay is less deep than Morrowind's. Ergo -Skyrim spent more money on graphics than gameplay.
Yet I played all those games and I legitimately think Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 are better than all of them.
I also don't think any single one of those games actually tops the rest in any single area and you kind of lay that out. You're also ignoring some criticisms that those new games deserve like:
Pillars: Nonsensical stats system, weak itemisation, small number of recruitable NPCs, gameplay mechanics outside of combat actually being less powerful than what Baldur's Gate allows for. The faction system in Pillars 1 isn't really well built or integrated into the story, it is in Deadfire but Deadfire has a whole litany of problems with its design and is a much worse game than the first one in my opinion.
Pathfinder: They did do a pretty good job of the character creation and progression but their game design is pretty terrible across the board, I really tried but I think the game is incredibly boring and lacking when it comes to storytelling and is also prone to just bad pacing and storytelling mechanics that can ruin a playthrough.
Divinity: The combat system I think is weak and basic, the storytelling in both games is completely mediocre, I don't know why you seriously think the dungeon puzzles are worth bringing up as they're laughable by the standards of any real puzzle games and are largely wasted effort.
So no, I think what you said had some truth in parts, but the actual comparisons are far more mixed than you've made it seem, and honestly in terms of videogame design some choices Bioware made in the Baldur's Gate games were good ideas, some simplifications made for a better videogame experience. You want to see a game not learn that lesson, that's Pathfinder Kingmaker.
I was mostly responding to this comment:
My responses are mostly about how there is a necessary relationship between graphics and voiceover considerations and gameplay content and systems, and that those considerations had a role in significantly changing some series and franchises in the past. It doesn't really say anything profound about BG3 or any of the games I haven't specifically brought up in these responses (other than their graphics, voiceover and gameplay aspects being linked on a budgetary level, obviously).
I guess that's fair, but you also made up your own example - "The Axe Game", which I took to be a generalized stand in for your point writ large. Was that supposed to be applicable only to a particular game? If not, that seems like a generalization - which why I had issues with it.
As I said in a post above, I'm not arguing that any of these games are better than BG. But they are undeniably more complex, have more choices for the player.
And I would say as a broad generalisation, I don't think its is correct and sells some aspects of BG1 and 2 rather short. You can isolate examples but, really, if anything my whole feeling on those games you mentioned is general disappointment at the lack of progression over 20 year old games, in certain areas they are worse and less sophisticated. It's not really a simple matter but I will acknowledge all those games tried to build further on different areas with rather mixed success I think.
If any of them had actually offered strong storytelling it would make up for a lot, but well, I really think for different reasons with each one that they all failed to match Baldur's Gate in that area, an area which isn't about gameplay mechanics or about systems, only skill at the art of it.
The Shadowrun games had that in spades though, and were easily the best of the crop for me.
It was a generalized stand-in for my larger point, which is that typical game marketing considerations involve the gaming industry's creeping graphical fidelity standards, and in most genres also voice-over standards, both of which have a direct effect on how much gameplay content and systems depth can be afforded from the game's budget.
In my thought experiment this was illustrated by a pre-production change in game design based on feedback from the investors (which is a thing that happens), but it doesn't always pan out like that. As you pointed out, it can be the case, especially if the game designer/director/producer/whatever is experienced at their job, that they can divide their production budget right from the start in a way that would satisfy the investors and also help market the game effectively. However, that doesn't mean that marketing considerations didn't influence their decisions, on the contrary. It means that they included those considerations into their budget planning right from the start.
Again, this doesn't mean that every game/franchise is getting worse, or anything general like that. It just means that these things are linked, and as the gaming industry's graphical fidelity and voiceover standards increase, so does the budgetary strain on gameplay. This is a difficulty that developers have to deal with, and sometimes it means that some series and franchises get simplified over time, or they get reworked to appeal to a wider audience.
ehh, there's very little choice in the quests in the BG series, for just one example. Let's be honest. There's very very few multi-solution or different outcome quests in BG1. The sparse choice & consequences is limited -- the bhaalspawn powers, the handful of sidequests. Most everything is kill the baddie or fetch the item. I have to say, I don't like the fact that you're eschewing examples in your post and instead relying on a generalized "i didn't like this".
Even in BG2, there's very little in the way of quest, dialogue or roleplaying complexity. There's one big decision, sure, but it's made in the final moment and has zero complex interactions with the gameplay. Most of the big quests, even the complex stronghold quests, are linear, combat oriented, and when they do offer multiple solutions, it's never more than two.
And your focus on storytelling is, I think, off topic from the original points I wrote about and that Adul wrote about. So I dunno, seems like you're using the new discussion as a pretext to launch a series of grievances or general comparison about the quality of these games versus BG. That wasn't my intention. For me the BG series is also still more fun than any of these games. But it is not more complex.
Again, in terms of combat, dialogue, character building, quest solving, all these games offer greater complexity, greater choice than the IE games. If anything, I think the fact that BG is more simplified, offers fewer choices, and yet is still more fun than these games belies some of the points Adul is making, and bolsters some of what Ballpointman has said. Simplicity could also be called elegance, and I think it has its advantages.
This is simply not true. The point system for skills offers far more choice than the BG games did and an infinite number of party compositions. You may not have liked that system, but it's undeniably more complex than BG's leveling. The choices for leveling in BG are limited to spell choice (and only for a few classes), weapon proficiencies and thief skills (and again only a few classes). It's not until HLA's that you're actually making important choices -- and even there, there's such an imbalance among them that there's not much of a choice for veterans, imo.
I mean, as a fighter you make one choice and only one choice every three level ups. It's a grand total of two choices in the *entire first game*. I don't understand how anyone can say that is more complex than original sin where you're distributing stat points, skills points and perks.
And it's not like character creation in BG is complex either. Experienced players know the dump stats for classes, there's very little agonizing choice there. Sure, multi classing and dual classing offers some greater complexity -- the most available in the IE games -- but OS has multi classing option as well.
Except that all """"building"""" on DOS2 pales i comparison to the gear usage.
And guess what; things on BG2 makes way more sense than on DOS2. Your fighter with 15 STR will NOT be able to use the best longbows which require 18 STR. Companions with 16 INT needs potions or other buffs to learn high tier magic.
And dump stat a problem? What is the solution to this (non) problem? Wizards with low INT being optimal for certain builds despite the game's lore determining that wizards are intellectuals like Pillars 1/2? Keep in mind that events on the story mostly on chapters 4 and 7 can give unique stats, positive and negative to your character.
And that you have way more variety with spellcasting on BG2 and weapons on BG2 than on DOS2. Choosing your spells in a game with over 300 spells or your spell specialization is far more impactful than anything on dos2. DOS2 items are mostly stat stickie items. On BG2, you can find a weapon which is +3, so can damage liches but not the demon lord, that steal life on enemy and has a chance of making then run in fear. This is far more interesting than finding a item that inflates a artificial inflated number by replacing by another artificial inflated number.
Attributes on BG2 makes a lot of sense. Where 25 is the peak godlike, 10 is average human, and 18 peak human capabilities. Creatures with more than 18 INT are Giants, Dragons and so on. Nizidramanii'yt has his STATS in about 20s, stats for legendary dragons.. Armor mechanics on BG2 also makes way more sense. Your full plate armor for eg, is far more likely to deflect a sword than a mace. And enemy resistances too. Makes sense that a zombie will be more vulnerable to slashing while a skeleton to blunt weapons.
I think a great deal of your post is an inaccurate characterization of OS, and it strikes me as perhaps commentary from someone who did not play very deep into the game. It's absolutely true that you're trading gear constantly in the first half of the game for stuff that has better primary stats. But this is absolutely not the case in the later game. As well, what you praised about BG: the monster immunities, the things like life leech and on-hit abilities -- those all exist in OS! It's crazy to me to write that comparison as if they do not exist. Damage immunities are a huge part of the OS series, arguably more than even in BG, certainly more than BG1.
And again, I want to key in on this word "artificial". Why is it not artificial that monsters have a freaking number based weapon immunity?
And as for "multiclassing," no, D:OS is a classless system. Classes exist but they're fake and meaningless. So the system essentially pretends to have classes but all the classes are functionally the same.
I absolutely prefer D&D to the CC of DoS games but if we are talking only about character creation they allow freedom to choose any stat, ability or skill for your character, so technically that´s more complex than a predetermined class/multiclass with fixed features obtained per level.
You want a summoner that throws volleys of arrows with a bow? or a healer that throws fireballs? a rogue that teleports enemies? A fighter with a magic staff that can grow wings and turn himself into stone? A necromancer that set exploding traps in the battlefield and summon bone spiders?
You got it.
That said, I do not think I agree with the "sameness" or "choices you make with your character don´t matter" depiction. I mean, a rogue that can fly and teleport things and a necromancer that set exploding traps and summon spiders have zero resemblance in skills, abilities, equipment, role in the party and in the way you play it, possible backstory etc no matter how you want to see it.
Is not "just a number based weapon immunity".
On D&D, cold damage and magical cold are two different things. Same with weapons. Werewolves for eg, has resistances against non magical weapons and it make sense. You need magical weapon to hurt magical creatures.
Did you watched berserk? Gut's Dragonslayer could hurt strong supernatural creatures because being used to cut a lot of lower supernatural makes the sword supernatural. His cannon dealt no damage on a certain "high level" enemy.
As for "constant trading gear", I HATE it. If i can't beat the game naked, the game is too gear dependent to my taste.
And progression on DOS2 is mostly number inflation. Look to for EG baldur's gate 2. You as a lv 1 necromancer can't even raise the dead, can only use very timid necromancer spells that draws just 4 points of hp at max, at lv 5, can create skull traps and use it to deal nasty damage and summon your first low level monsters. Around lv 10, you now finally can raise undead and have skeleton servants. You are finally a fully fledged necromancer. At lv 18+ you can stop the time, can chain cast on a chain contigency with 2 lower resist and a greater malison to destroy magical defenses while you stop tge time, casts wail of the banshee slaying an army or even casts many finger of the death and have like over 90% of chances of OHKilling a dragon before the time starts again. You are finally a fully master of life and death.
On DoS2? A Single summon limit from the beginning to the end and mostly the same skills only with greater damage numbers.
Sure, BG2(D&D) could gave the same great progression to martial classes too, so a grand master of axe fighting can use a decapitation, can infuse his axe with magical energies and have some things based on Overlord "martial arts".
You can but having skills that target magical armor and skills that targets normal armor would not be optimal on dos2...
Different abilities have distinct areas of effect, damage type and range; causes dissimilar debuffs, react differently against diverse monsters, have different cooldown, causes distinctive reactions in several elemental surfaces, etc etc
A simple magic system is the one in TES games, dungeon siege, etc: You`re casting the same 5 spells with different names for 100 levels.
I STRONGLY disagree that TES has simplistic magic system.
Only for conjuration on morrowind, has more than 30 possible effects https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Morrowind:Spell_Effects
And the same effect can be vastly different. Levitation to levitate 5 pts for 10 seconds and for 100 pts for 10 seconds are vastly different spells. You can even fail on casting a spell, it just waste mana, would be cooler if for eg, the fireball explodes into the caster's hands. Combining spells and crafting custom spells on morrowind is also epic.
But IMO even Skyrim which has the WEAKEST magic of all TES games not considering ESO, where you spend 99% of the using the same spell(fire bolt is the most mana efficient and with a perk can stunlock enemies to death, is only not optimal vs Flame Atronach ), is better than managing artificial timers(cooldowns). On Morrowind, you will not become the game conjuring Gold Saints and Storm Atronach. Even if you learn the spell, you will have like 2% chance of casting...
You can also enchant items. Which has no casting animation, so you can for eg, make a spell which deals X frost damage in a second and inflicts X weakness to frost and Y, but fire this spell fast as you click. There are so many cool stuff that a magician can make on morrowind. You can even exploit the game by casting levitation 1 on NPC's and seeing their AI doing all types of crazy stuff.
One thing that I DON'T UNDERSTAND, is people who complain "except by mirror image, most low level spells become useless on baldur's gate". I just don't see the problem. In fact, a evoker starting his carrer able to cast burning hands, then fireball, then dealyed blast fireball and finally, high level spells like incendiary cloud and meteor swarm is so cool. It represents the progression of the mage. Just like a .45-70 rifle is better for hunting boars than a 22 lr(a amazing cartridge to teach people how to use firearms since is cheap and has little to no recoil but is not the best to hunt large animals), burning hands being a starting spell is GOOD.
And the same happens with weapons for fighters. Your fighter who started with a rusty dagger and a shortbow will not end the game with this weapon, he will probably has a good magical weapon that causes a lot of nasty effects.
This is an interesting analysis of the problems with the games you mention, @hybridial . You've managed to identify some of the reasons I didn't like or couldn't keep myself motivated to finish or replay these titles, when I usually struggle to "put my finger on it" or identify why. I should be the expected target audience for Pillars, Pathfinder, and Divinity, yet I had responses ranging from lukewarm to outright disliking all those titles.
Sometimes I would find initial excitement or enjoyment in them, which would quickly die down and settle into disinterest, if not active dislike. Thank you for a very insightful post.
That's a really *bad* thing to me. "When everyone is super, no one is."
I need class fantasy to enjoy a roleplaying game.
Yes, they all had a common problem in their storytelling, which I would say is a lack of urgency and a lack of personal motivation. I think its perhaps underestimated just how important the writing was to Baldur's Gate long term success, it may not be Planescape Torment by any means (I assume, I've still to play that actually but I will soon) but its well judged in giving the player emotional engagement and wanting to see the journey through to the end. It has an epic feel none of those newer games matched for me. I think with Pillars its a personal involvement issue (especially in Deadfire where you have no real say at the end on much of anything), in Divinity it's a tonal problem and the fact its storyline was passe, and in Pathfinder the early story is kind of just there mostly and things like how long it takes to trawl the world map and how important things can be locked behind skill checks and how obscure the game's story progression often is.
I think all of them kind of failed to understand that Adventure is why people play these kind of CRPGs and they all got it wrong in different ways.
I'd probably add that out of those, I feel I might try to give Pathfinder another chance because the gameplay is pretty solid, but, there's other stuff that does put me off when I think about them, like how utterly bland its graphics and dungeon designs are. Outdoor areas are okay but interiors remind me of Neverwinter Nights, and that's an awful thing.
No.
I've played all of these games a lot over the past 2-3 years and I stand by everything I said. These are direct comparisons.
You don't have many places to take your argument when you insist we think the way we do because of nostalgia, its hardly showing respect. There are problems in the Baldur's Gate games, they are not, nor ever were perfect products. I was never saying that.
But those other, newer titles I simply found to not be very good. Might not be as cut and dry than, say, why Bethesda Fallout is absolutely horrible compared to Fallout 1 and 2 if you go in expecting anything remotely like what Fallout was, but, they simply failed in key areas. And writing quality in particularly, has nothing to do with age.
As for your arguments about the newer titles, many others did find them to be good games, and for some people way better games than the old games. And writing quality specifically, I have many issues with the writing and even story of the BG games, including specifically BG2. For example, I find Chris Avellone to be highly overrated as a writer. His writing is tedious and pedantic. Neither you nor I are automatically right or wrong. We each have our perspective. So I completely stand by what I've said.
"I don't agree with you, so you must be biased in some manner (nostalgia) and and by that I'm implying your points lack validity."
When it gets to that, I don't feel particularly respected, and don't tell me that isn't accurate to what you said because that is what you said.
And "other people like x" is hardly much of a point either, if you really think those games have better writing than Baldur's Gate, how about you explain why you think that? Because that's definitely the most consistent issue I had with those games with aspects of the writing simply giving me reasons to stop playing rather than continue playing. Most of your arguments about those games being more complex in other areas is sporadically true, but nothing that made those games holistically better or even good in some cases, and BG2 at least often did offer quite a lot of choice in how you complete some of its quests, granted the majority of them didn't have much impact on the story, but I really cannot remember anything in Pillars 1 or 2 having much of an impact in the end either, because Obsidian pretty much insisted on Pillars of Eternity never even really being about the protagonist.
And none of these games specifically had Fallout's quest design complexity either, which I bring up just because the age of these games isn't all that relevant to the quality of their content design, that's decided more by what they decided to focus on, and maybe Wasteland 2 kinda was like that, but none of the others were. Obsidian's best work of that nature was definitely in Fallout New Vegas and not in the Pillars games.