Black and white choices to problems and answers where questions and problems where nuance is the best answer. Honestly this annoys me more than anything there's a game that gives me choices to an issue but all the choices just go too far in what ever direction they are leaning instead of having a choice that tries to create a compromise.
I get that not every issue can have a compromise answer but not everyone issue is a hard yes/no, right/wrong, good/evil answer to it.either.
Necromancers are all vile and evil... Like bruh, you're telling me not one necromancer studied necromancy not to be some evil monster that searches for power, but out of ginuine curiousity? Or even just fear of death and see it as a way to find a means to escape death? I get the who "desicrating the dead bit" but one reason I liked diablo 2 when I played it was because necromancers seem to not be treated as an unholy evil, just not a super favored magic by the average person. Heck even in dragon age they have a whole nation that favored necromancy, and that led to them respectfully treating and preserving their dead just in case they needed to raise them to defend their country. And humans aren't the only creatures that die you know, I don't see why a necromancer couldn't study his craft on animals instead of Humans to avoid all the evil implications of manipulating and toying with souls and dead to get a better understanding of it.
Even I try to play necromancers as neutrally as possible no point in being "raa raa I'm chaotic evil because I raise the dead and ish." And yes my necromancers do raise the dead.
Kind of on the other end of the spectrum, but also when games force choices on you that are all grey or just downright sucked, when a good solution is very simple. No, I don't think I need to slaughter these elves stealing medicine for sick family OR let the merchant go out of business by letting them take it. Let me just buy the freaking medicine for them!
@ThacoBell , That's kind of a peeve for me, too. I hate when games force me into fights and killing when I could see a clear way to avoid it, and it was completely unnecessary. A related peeve would be when games have groups attack me when it made absolutely no sense for them to do so. Either I and my party are so clearly more powerful that they had to have reasonably known it was suicide to attack, or they were intelligent beings who had no good reason to attack on sight, other than, "These "monsters" are 'evil' by definition, and they're here to give you XP."
Another related peeve for my druids is in-game animals like wolves and bears that attack humans on sight. Real animals do *not* behave that way around humans, and animals as intelligent as wolves, bears, and big cats can learn what human arms and armor mean. This problem is especially "annoying" to me in Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights, because there's no way to avoid killing them other than to leave the map entirely. Charm Animal doesn't work, because, first, you can fail the roll, and second, even if you succeed, it has a duration that wears off quickly so you have to kill them anyway.
And I think it's wrong to charm a natural animal into fighting for you. I can only use animal companions and summoning spells by rationalizing that they are magical animal spirits that don't have physical bodies that can die, they are blessed with magical intelligence, and when they are defeated in combat they are temporarily dispelled, not killed with pain and suffering like a natural animal would be if you forced it to fight.
@ThacoBell , That's kind of a peeve for me, too. I hate when games force me into fights and killing when I could see a clear way to avoid it, and it was completely unnecessary. A related peeve would be when games have groups attack me when it made absolutely no sense for them to do so. Either I and my party are so clearly more powerful that they had to have reasonably known it was suicide to attack, or they were intelligent beings who had no good reason to attack on sight, other than, "These "monsters" are 'evil' by definition, and they're here to give you XP."
Another related peeve for my druids is in-game animals like wolves and bears that attack humans on sight. Real animals do *not* behave that way around humans, and animals as intelligent as wolves, bears, and big cats can learn what human arms and armor mean. This problem is especially "annoying" to me in Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights, because there's no way to avoid killing them other than to leave the map entirely. Charm Animal doesn't work, because, first, you can fail the roll, and second, even if you succeed, it has a duration that wears off quickly so you have to kill them anyway.
And I think it's wrong to charm a natural animal into fighting for you. I can only use animal companions and summoning spells by rationalizing that they are magical animal spirits that don't have physical bodies that can die, they are blessed with magical intelligence, and when they are defeated in combat they are temporarily dispelled, not killed with pain and suffering like a natural animal would be if you forced it to fight.
I agree with you about the behavior of the animals in BG. I believe the SCS mod has a setting that makes wolves and bears less aggressive that you may like.
This is a video game, though. Nothing in it is real. The animals are 1's and 0's in pixel form on your screen. They really don't mind fighting for you!
Even in vanilla BG, the bear AI won't go hostile unless (a) someone's pretty close to them, and (b) none of the party members they can see are druids or rangers. Regular bears, anyway; some variants like cave bears are more aggressive. And attacking them will make an enemy regardless.
Wolves, though, always start hostile. And they move pretty fast, with quick-striking bite "weapons". There's a reason they've killed so many level 1 characters.
This is what SCS changes; the random (basic) wolves and dogs don't start as enemies, and have a similar AI to the bears on when they go hostle.
It's always funny when (with that mod) you're waylaid by a pack of feral dogs - who just mill around being friendly. Maybe they're trying to bum some food off of you?
Welcome to another edition of "Old Man is Grumpy about Modern Games Trends."
I don't like it when rpgs feel the need to split significant playtime with other genres. Owlcats latest offerings are probably the most blatant cases. Kingmaker had a kingdom sim and WotR has RTS-lite. I just want to play an rpg, not an rpg with an RTS tumor hanging off the side. I really wasn't a fan of kingmaker, but I still hold out hope for WotR to be worth something.
You meet at a tavern. The owner gives the party their first quest: he wants you to kill the giant rats in the basement.
Ok, stop right there. Why do you have rats in your tavern? And since they're giant rats, they must have left some giant droppings all over the place. And you just want some random strangers to clean up that mess? Sounds shady. Do your customers know that they're eating and drinking stuff that's been spiced with rat shit? How about I go get the city's health inspector?
Welcome to another edition of "Old Man is Grumpy about Modern Games Trends."
I don't like it when rpgs feel the need to split significant playtime with other genres. Owlcats latest offerings are probably the most blatant cases. Kingmaker had a kingdom sim and WotR has RTS-lite. I just want to play an rpg, not an rpg with an RTS tumor hanging off the side. I really wasn't a fan of kingmaker, but I still hold out hope for WotR to be worth something.
Gotta say I disagree, I like it when they take the time to properly implement things like kingdom management. If I don't actually get freaking control over my kingdom why even put me in the freaking seat of power at all? Just make me another generic nobody being hired to do the job. Funny thing about what you said about king maker though, managing a kingdom with a kingdom sim is literally still roleplaying in that role playing game that you are playing..
I don't like it when it's not exanded on enough like say dragon commander. I want to love this game so much, it's a mix of tbs, rts, and roleplaying. But they fall short on each end because they didn't dig deeper. Its like they have the structure there, but then stopped with it.
Well, if you take RPGs as just the name, every video is an rpg, they all put you in a role. But at the point, its meaningless as a genre. When someone says "RPG" there's usually 1 of 2 types of game that pops into someone's head. If I want to play a city building sim, I'll play a city building sim (I don't, they're boring). But what can one do with subjectivity? Note it and move on, I guess.
You meet at a tavern. The owner gives the party their first quest: he wants you to kill the giant rats in the basement.
Ok, stop right there. Why do you have rats in your tavern? And since they're giant rats, they must have left some giant droppings all over the place. And you just want some random strangers to clean up that mess? Sounds shady. Do your customers know that they're eating and drinking stuff that's been spiced with rat shit? How about I go get the city's health inspector?
Welcome to another edition of "Old Man is Grumpy about Modern Games Trends."
I don't like it when rpgs feel the need to split significant playtime with other genres. Owlcats latest offerings are probably the most blatant cases. Kingmaker had a kingdom sim and WotR has RTS-lite. I just want to play an rpg, not an rpg with an RTS tumor hanging off the side. I really wasn't a fan of kingmaker, but I still hold out hope for WotR to be worth something.
Gotta say I disagree, I like it when they take the time to properly implement things like kingdom management. If I don't actually get freaking control over my kingdom why even put me in the freaking seat of power at all? Just make me another generic nobody being hired to do the job. Funny thing about what you said about king maker though, managing a kingdom with a kingdom sim is literally still roleplaying in that role playing game that you are playing..
I don't like it when it's not exanded on enough like say dragon commander. I want to love this game so much, it's a mix of tbs, rts, and roleplaying. But they fall short on each end because they didn't dig deeper. Its like they have the structure there, but then stopped with it.
I personally don't mind mini-games or secondary games within an RPG if they're done well. This has been growing since BG2 and the strongholds anyways. And strongholds had long been a possible addition to some tabletop DnD. Though I do understand if some people just want to get on with the questing.
I think Kingmaker did a pretty solid job of tying the management into the main game. Advisor alignment matters and advisor stats (which can be increased by gear) mattered. And of course plot events shaped your kingdom too. As well as kingdom choices shaping some of the bonuses and such you'd get in the main game. It was a little crude and a little generic at times, but at the same time, if it had been more complex, it would have detracted from the main game. To be honest, the worst part about its implementation was simply the huge amount of loading screens you had to suffer when working your kingdom.
I like these developments and think they do a bit to push the genre forward. As well as allow individual titles to offer something truly unique, beyond just the plot and characters.
I like those kind of mixing in a bit of another genre too, but I can see that not everyone would like it and I don't think it's something every RPG should have. And it would be nice if people were able to automate it, with the automation going a decent job.
One of my pet peeves is having to collect x identical artifacts to progress the story. Specifically when they are really identical in game and are placed willy-nilly into the world to get the player to interesting places.
Point in case, KOTOR 1 with the Star Maps, which all feel the same and which seem to have been placed rather randomly across the SW universe without real regard where the Rakata would place them. I am not saying the four planets weren't good - I liked them all - but the Star Map thing feels lazy.
Same with Gothic 1 and the focus stones. Why exactly did the mages who created the barrier not take the stones with them? And why are they all in random monster-haunted places (I know it is from where they created the barrier, but the spots still seem odd).
Contrast with KOTOR 2 where instead of generic Star Maps you search for 4 specific Jedi Masters, which each have distinct identities and believable reasons to go to the specific worlds. That is fine, same as learning to understand 8 distinct virtues in Ultima 4.
Specifically, out-of-combat use (or out of preparation for combat use) for magic being lacking is one of my pet peeves too. Baldur's Gate is not really that different, with the minor exceptions being spells like Friends or Limited Wish.
I think good counter-examples were Elderscrolls before Oblivion, Might and Magic and the old Ultima games. And Pillars of Eternity sometimes allows using spells in dialogue.
Skills being usable outside of combat is pretty much standard by now though.
Specifically, out-of-combat use (or out of preparation for combat use) for magic being lacking is one of my pet peeves too. Baldur's Gate is not really that different, with the minor exceptions being spells like Friends or Limited Wish.
I think good counter-examples were Elderscrolls before Oblivion, Might and Magic and the old Ultima games. And Pillars of Eternity sometimes allows using spells in dialogue.
Skills being usable outside of combat is pretty much standard by now though.
Oh man, I remember both Featherfall and Spiderclimb being some of the most useful spells in P&P. I don't recall any RPG making use of either of those spells...
@DinoDin I like mini-games as well *cough*finalfantasy*cough*. My specific pet peeve is when it expands beyond mini-game territory and into "This is now half the game. Hope you didn't want to just play an RPG."
Specifically, out-of-combat use (or out of preparation for combat use) for magic being lacking is one of my pet peeves too. Baldur's Gate is not really that different, with the minor exceptions being spells like Friends or Limited Wish.
I think good counter-examples were Elderscrolls before Oblivion, Might and Magic and the old Ultima games. And Pillars of Eternity sometimes allows using spells in dialogue.
Skills being usable outside of combat is pretty much standard by now though.
One area where I think Original Sin series shines.
I do think you shortchange the BG games a tad here, invisibility was huge. Detect evil or know alignment helps in certain spots and works well within the roleplaying of the games. Was definitely critical on my first playthroughs. Others are limited to certain odd party alignments but find traps, knock are there.
Welcome to another edition of "Old Man is Grumpy about Modern Games Trends."
I don't like it when rpgs feel the need to split significant playtime with other genres. Owlcats latest offerings are probably the most blatant cases. Kingmaker had a kingdom sim and WotR has RTS-lite. I just want to play an rpg, not an rpg with an RTS tumor hanging off the side. I really wasn't a fan of kingmaker, but I still hold out hope for WotR to be worth something.
Gotta say I disagree, I like it when they take the time to properly implement things like kingdom management. If I don't actually get freaking control over my kingdom why even put me in the freaking seat of power at all? Just make me another generic nobody being hired to do the job. Funny thing about what you said about king maker though, managing a kingdom with a kingdom sim is literally still roleplaying in that role playing game that you are playing..
I don't like it when it's not exanded on enough like say dragon commander. I want to love this game so much, it's a mix of tbs, rts, and roleplaying. But they fall short on each end because they didn't dig deeper. Its like they have the structure there, but then stopped with it.
I personally don't mind mini-games or secondary games within an RPG if they're done well. This has been growing since BG2 and the strongholds anyways. And strongholds had long been a possible addition to some tabletop DnD. Though I do understand if some people just want to get on with the questing.
I think Kingmaker did a pretty solid job of tying the management into the main game. Advisor alignment matters and advisor stats (which can be increased by gear) mattered. And of course plot events shaped your kingdom too. As well as kingdom choices shaping some of the bonuses and such you'd get in the main game. It was a little crude and a little generic at times, but at the same time, if it had been more complex, it would have detracted from the main game. To be honest, the worst part about its implementation was simply the huge amount of loading screens you had to suffer when working your kingdom.
I like these developments and think they do a bit to push the genre forward. As well as allow individual titles to offer something truly unique, beyond just the plot and characters.
I like those kind of mixing in a bit of another genre too, but I can see that not everyone would like it and I don't think it's something every RPG should have. And it would be nice if people were able to automate it, with the automation going a decent job.
One of my pet peeves is having to collect x identical artifacts to progress the story. Specifically when they are really identical in game and are placed willy-nilly into the world to get the player to interesting places.
Point in case, KOTOR 1 with the Star Maps, which all feel the same and which seem to have been placed rather randomly across the SW universe without real regard where the Rakata would place them. I am not saying the four planets weren't good - I liked them all - but the Star Map thing feels lazy.
Same with Gothic 1 and the focus stones. Why exactly did the mages who created the barrier not take the stones with them? And why are they all in random monster-haunted places (I know it is from where they created the barrier, but the spots still seem odd).
Contrast with KOTOR 2 where instead of generic Star Maps you search for 4 specific Jedi Masters, which each have distinct identities and believable reasons to go to the specific worlds. That is fine, same as learning to understand 8 distinct virtues in Ultima 4.
Yea I agree not every rpg should just like how every rpg doesn't need the mc to be the chosen one, or the big hero that saves the world, or the child of a god... Sometimes just give me a story where I'm a mercenary/adventurer just doing a job, I don't need to be concerned with some big political struggle between kings and nobles because honestly I don't care I just want to be paid.
With that said if you're going to make me say the king/baron/emperor/general of a whole country or military power...heck even of just some organization (king maker, dragon commander, inquisition, basically every freaking elderscrolls where you become the head of a guild or organization)... I literally expect to actually do things relates to my current position of power and not just. (Oh your the king now, but we still need resources and things so we are going to give you more quest to complete despite how unbelievable illogical it is for you to be doing these things and it really should be delegated to you know... That thing you were before taking your position, I don't know ADVENTURES!)
I do like how kingmaker implemented it even though I hate how they locked stats away... Exactly why do I need 60 divine and rank 3 to unlock arcane? Last time I checked you don't need actual divine connections to study the arcane arts, we tend to have a name for those that do, we call them sorcerers.
Alot of this stuff just boils down to video game mechanics being what they are. In the end, it's far more important for something to make sense in the context of playing the game than having it make sense logically. I guess the only thing I don't like is timers, but, even then, I understand the valid reasons they exist in the games they do.
I think it's interesting with rpgs that people assume we all like the same thing... baldurs gate has always felt like a game people enjoy for different reasons.
Most modern rpgs annoy me in 2 ways... 1. Immersion - for me an rpg is an interactive novel and I want to feel Im watching a real story play out. I really can't stand the little things that break immersion... hp bars above npc heads, numbers popping out of enemies as you hit them etc. Pathfinder for me was unplayable until the Immersion Mode came out. 2. Companion dialogue - same issue as above, I want great characters like a novel... i want detailed friendship tracks and I think romance should be on an equal path to friendship... companies dont need to spend vast resources on romance scenes, just make the dialogue engaging, believable.
You could summarise the above as one... a good story needs a good writer, too many video game makers think they can write the story themselves.. that's the fun part afterall... no.. just no...you need a professional writer more than anything.
@fluke13
I only liked bg for 2 things
Bg 1 the explorations and world.
Bg 2 the characters and their interactions
I didn't care for gameplay because bg just felt simplistic when it came to gameplay. I found warriors boring and mages all basically played the same. I care more for thematics of my build rather than whether or not my build can beat the game on the hardest difficulty without reloading while playing a mode that makes the game a thousand times harder. Most mage builds in bg just all felt the same and you barely can diverge from what works because stuff either lost effectiveness, extremely limited, or there was so little that you couldn't build a theme to begin with.
If you think about Planescape Torment... The gameplay isn't good. But because of the story and characters many consider it the best RPG of all time. Pathfinder, bg3... Graphics, gameplay are nice, but the little touches are missing. I want to feel like I am the main character and it's my story, like I felt in bg2.
where a game gives you the good and evil option but also a skill check that gives you a 3rd more optimal option that you will always pick and ignore the other two.
Comments
Black and white choices to problems and answers where questions and problems where nuance is the best answer. Honestly this annoys me more than anything there's a game that gives me choices to an issue but all the choices just go too far in what ever direction they are leaning instead of having a choice that tries to create a compromise.
I get that not every issue can have a compromise answer but not everyone issue is a hard yes/no, right/wrong, good/evil answer to it.either.
Necromancers are all vile and evil... Like bruh, you're telling me not one necromancer studied necromancy not to be some evil monster that searches for power, but out of ginuine curiousity? Or even just fear of death and see it as a way to find a means to escape death? I get the who "desicrating the dead bit" but one reason I liked diablo 2 when I played it was because necromancers seem to not be treated as an unholy evil, just not a super favored magic by the average person. Heck even in dragon age they have a whole nation that favored necromancy, and that led to them respectfully treating and preserving their dead just in case they needed to raise them to defend their country. And humans aren't the only creatures that die you know, I don't see why a necromancer couldn't study his craft on animals instead of Humans to avoid all the evil implications of manipulating and toying with souls and dead to get a better understanding of it.
Even I try to play necromancers as neutrally as possible no point in being "raa raa I'm chaotic evil because I raise the dead and ish." And yes my necromancers do raise the dead.
Another related peeve for my druids is in-game animals like wolves and bears that attack humans on sight. Real animals do *not* behave that way around humans, and animals as intelligent as wolves, bears, and big cats can learn what human arms and armor mean. This problem is especially "annoying" to me in Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights, because there's no way to avoid killing them other than to leave the map entirely. Charm Animal doesn't work, because, first, you can fail the roll, and second, even if you succeed, it has a duration that wears off quickly so you have to kill them anyway.
And I think it's wrong to charm a natural animal into fighting for you. I can only use animal companions and summoning spells by rationalizing that they are magical animal spirits that don't have physical bodies that can die, they are blessed with magical intelligence, and when they are defeated in combat they are temporarily dispelled, not killed with pain and suffering like a natural animal would be if you forced it to fight.
I agree with you about the behavior of the animals in BG. I believe the SCS mod has a setting that makes wolves and bears less aggressive that you may like.
This is a video game, though. Nothing in it is real. The animals are 1's and 0's in pixel form on your screen. They really don't mind fighting for you!
Wolves, though, always start hostile. And they move pretty fast, with quick-striking bite "weapons". There's a reason they've killed so many level 1 characters.
This is what SCS changes; the random (basic) wolves and dogs don't start as enemies, and have a similar AI to the bears on when they go hostle.
It's always funny when (with that mod) you're waylaid by a pack of feral dogs - who just mill around being friendly. Maybe they're trying to bum some food off of you?
I don't like it when rpgs feel the need to split significant playtime with other genres. Owlcats latest offerings are probably the most blatant cases. Kingmaker had a kingdom sim and WotR has RTS-lite. I just want to play an rpg, not an rpg with an RTS tumor hanging off the side. I really wasn't a fan of kingmaker, but I still hold out hope for WotR to be worth something.
Ok, stop right there. Why do you have rats in your tavern? And since they're giant rats, they must have left some giant droppings all over the place. And you just want some random strangers to clean up that mess? Sounds shady. Do your customers know that they're eating and drinking stuff that's been spiced with rat shit? How about I go get the city's health inspector?
Gotta say I disagree, I like it when they take the time to properly implement things like kingdom management. If I don't actually get freaking control over my kingdom why even put me in the freaking seat of power at all? Just make me another generic nobody being hired to do the job. Funny thing about what you said about king maker though, managing a kingdom with a kingdom sim is literally still roleplaying in that role playing game that you are playing..
I don't like it when it's not exanded on enough like say dragon commander. I want to love this game so much, it's a mix of tbs, rts, and roleplaying. But they fall short on each end because they didn't dig deeper. Its like they have the structure there, but then stopped with it.
:sideways glances at Icewind Dale:
I personally don't mind mini-games or secondary games within an RPG if they're done well. This has been growing since BG2 and the strongholds anyways. And strongholds had long been a possible addition to some tabletop DnD. Though I do understand if some people just want to get on with the questing.
I think Kingmaker did a pretty solid job of tying the management into the main game. Advisor alignment matters and advisor stats (which can be increased by gear) mattered. And of course plot events shaped your kingdom too. As well as kingdom choices shaping some of the bonuses and such you'd get in the main game. It was a little crude and a little generic at times, but at the same time, if it had been more complex, it would have detracted from the main game. To be honest, the worst part about its implementation was simply the huge amount of loading screens you had to suffer when working your kingdom.
I like these developments and think they do a bit to push the genre forward. As well as allow individual titles to offer something truly unique, beyond just the plot and characters.
One of my pet peeves is having to collect x identical artifacts to progress the story. Specifically when they are really identical in game and are placed willy-nilly into the world to get the player to interesting places.
Point in case, KOTOR 1 with the Star Maps, which all feel the same and which seem to have been placed rather randomly across the SW universe without real regard where the Rakata would place them. I am not saying the four planets weren't good - I liked them all - but the Star Map thing feels lazy.
Same with Gothic 1 and the focus stones. Why exactly did the mages who created the barrier not take the stones with them? And why are they all in random monster-haunted places (I know it is from where they created the barrier, but the spots still seem odd).
Contrast with KOTOR 2 where instead of generic Star Maps you search for 4 specific Jedi Masters, which each have distinct identities and believable reasons to go to the specific worlds. That is fine, same as learning to understand 8 distinct virtues in Ultima 4.
However, in many RPG you can craft and enchant armor/weapons, use alchemy to produce potions etc. ☑️
I played also RPG where the cooking skills are very important. LoL ??
Example: Marenian Tavern Story: Patty and the Hungry God ⬅️
I think good counter-examples were Elderscrolls before Oblivion, Might and Magic and the old Ultima games. And Pillars of Eternity sometimes allows using spells in dialogue.
Skills being usable outside of combat is pretty much standard by now though.
Oh man, I remember both Featherfall and Spiderclimb being some of the most useful spells in P&P. I don't recall any RPG making use of either of those spells...
One area where I think Original Sin series shines.
I do think you shortchange the BG games a tad here, invisibility was huge. Detect evil or know alignment helps in certain spots and works well within the roleplaying of the games. Was definitely critical on my first playthroughs. Others are limited to certain odd party alignments but find traps, knock are there.
Yea I agree not every rpg should just like how every rpg doesn't need the mc to be the chosen one, or the big hero that saves the world, or the child of a god... Sometimes just give me a story where I'm a mercenary/adventurer just doing a job, I don't need to be concerned with some big political struggle between kings and nobles because honestly I don't care I just want to be paid.
With that said if you're going to make me say the king/baron/emperor/general of a whole country or military power...heck even of just some organization (king maker, dragon commander, inquisition, basically every freaking elderscrolls where you become the head of a guild or organization)... I literally expect to actually do things relates to my current position of power and not just. (Oh your the king now, but we still need resources and things so we are going to give you more quest to complete despite how unbelievable illogical it is for you to be doing these things and it really should be delegated to you know... That thing you were before taking your position, I don't know ADVENTURES!)
I do like how kingmaker implemented it even though I hate how they locked stats away... Exactly why do I need 60 divine and rank 3 to unlock arcane? Last time I checked you don't need actual divine connections to study the arcane arts, we tend to have a name for those that do, we call them sorcerers.
Most modern rpgs annoy me in 2 ways... 1. Immersion - for me an rpg is an interactive novel and I want to feel Im watching a real story play out. I really can't stand the little things that break immersion... hp bars above npc heads, numbers popping out of enemies as you hit them etc. Pathfinder for me was unplayable until the Immersion Mode came out. 2. Companion dialogue - same issue as above, I want great characters like a novel... i want detailed friendship tracks and I think romance should be on an equal path to friendship... companies dont need to spend vast resources on romance scenes, just make the dialogue engaging, believable.
You could summarise the above as one... a good story needs a good writer, too many video game makers think they can write the story themselves.. that's the fun part afterall... no.. just no...you need a professional writer more than anything.
I only liked bg for 2 things
Bg 1 the explorations and world.
Bg 2 the characters and their interactions
I didn't care for gameplay because bg just felt simplistic when it came to gameplay. I found warriors boring and mages all basically played the same. I care more for thematics of my build rather than whether or not my build can beat the game on the hardest difficulty without reloading while playing a mode that makes the game a thousand times harder. Most mage builds in bg just all felt the same and you barely can diverge from what works because stuff either lost effectiveness, extremely limited, or there was so little that you couldn't build a theme to begin with.