Lancer

IWD's combat was easy too.. The only difference was that in IWD you were scarfed down the throat with it and it came out the other end... and then some more.. and then some more... and more.. and more...ad nauseum.

I am not even going to attempt to answer this one. Same ol' same ol' Volourn. I for one enjoyed the combat in PS:T and was bored to tears with IWD's combat. There was just TOO much of it in IWD.

Seriously speaking, I think the question should be "what class-based games ARE there?" There is just a crapload of skill-based games with no classes. Almost all of them nowadays are, although many come with "templates." They just don't make many class-based systems anymore. GURPS yes, Call of Cthulhu yes, World of Darkness games have "templates" which are sorta like classes but they are more like guidelines Shadowrun, similar to WoD.. It has templates that aren't really classes in the truest sense Cyberbunk 2020 has classes but it is VERY trivial to design your own using those rules. Cyberspace, ditto as per Cyberpunk 2020 Heavy Gear has templates but you can make your own character from scratch too Hero/Champion you are allowed to make your own from scratch Silver Age Sentinels... so is FUZION (and it is FREE!), FUDGE(though this is more of a framework from which you can devise your own ruleset rather than an actual ruleset. ALSO FREE!), ..etc.. You get the idea.

Regardless, the majority of the world (Earth, our blue pearl) revolves around a daytime schedule of approximate 8-5pm with few exceptions. School is during the day and most activities and businesses are open during the day.That is no surprise. It is done for a reason. So unless you work in one of those few night jobs I suggest getting used to reality.

No Shadowstrider.. YOU are the one who doesn't have a dang clue what you are talking about. My own dad works graveyard and has been doing it for 30+ years and has NEVER gotten used to it. He's had sleeping problems for the longest time and could only wish to have a normal schedule. Show me these studies and what were the conditions. Sure you have. I have worked for the USPS and none of my co-workers who worked graveyard like it. Nor did I. Maybe some 20 year old kid with no other responsibilities including scholastic ones can do it but if you have family and kids and other responsibilities you wouldn't like graveyard either. When you have kids and a family and bills to pay, tell me again if you can do graveyard NO PROBLEM.

It is futile to talk about other games and systems. Mystara rules all

Nonsense. People don't want to work graveyard shifts simply because they are too tired at 2, 3 am or so to be working. Most of the world sleeps at those hours. It's that simple. Most people aren't extremely productive too when it is as early 7 or 8am or so but that doesn't make them night people.. That just means they are not productive in the early morning.. Usually because people still prefer to sleep at those hours...

I have a strong feeling this is exactly the case although Diamond and others are not telling us. I can't prove it, however, unless I physically go to where they live and monitor their lifestyles for a few weeks. Just from common sense, I doubt it that there are many nocturnal humans (unless they're vampires).. Most people work 8-5pm and I have never heard anyone complaining that they rather have a graveyard schedule instead. On the contrary, people can't stand to work during those hours.

The eating in Super Hydlide wasn't nearly as painful as it was in Ultima VII. This was partly because Super Hydlide was a single player RPG.. I am surrounded by weirdos!

I bet you are a day person <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What gives you that idea? :D

Precisely. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> very peculiar indeed.

I am not talking about the hours you go out and party.. So you can are a more alert reader and have higher comprehension at 1am as opposed to 1pm? You can do math correctly at 1am? And coffee nor sleeping in counts.

That much I figured would be true for the PC as I stated in my original post. However, I would bet that Super Hydlide was the first RPG on any console with this feature.

No, Ultima had forced the stupid "eat food, you bastard!" on you all the way from the start. I clearly remember buying 9999 food in Ultima IV, just to be able to forget about it for the rest of the game. Edit: Typo. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I never got to play the oldest Ultimas but besides Ultima was there anyone else? And more importantly, do you know of any console RPGs that beat Super Hydlide to the punch in making your character eat?

Most odd statistics. Where did you get them? Just because you are forced to be active at night (i.e. forced to work graveyard shift) doesn't mean that you FUNCTION better at night. This is a big distinction.

The only game I knew that required you to eat food was Ultima VII which came out in '92 I believe. Super Hydlide already had this in '90. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Robinson's Requiem. Kind of a sucky game but it was a survival game. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Let me re-state that.. The only game RPG I knew that *required* you to eat food was Ultima VII which came out in '92 I believe. Super Hydlide already had this in '90.

The only game I knew that *required* you to eat food was Ultima VII which came out in '92 I believe. Super Hydlide already had this in '90. It is possible that some ancient PC games back in the '80s had this but I am pretty sure it was a novel concept for console.

hardly "realistic" if you are playing a night-active character. That's more of a gamey limitation than a realisitic option. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And how many people are actually more awake and effective during night-time than during the day? I would gander that a very small percentage indeed. To a first order approximation I would say that its treatment in Super Hydlide was realistic. The game just chose to ignore the <1% of the populace that function better at night. Not a bad gaming decision. I think you are influenced by the large variety of unusual perks that the Fallout games allow you to choose from. I don't think "realism" was the prime concern with these perks per se ---As many of them were downright ridiculous if you think about it like fast metabolism offering radiation resistance? Or how about ones such as Jinx or Bloody Mess which were there for more comedic reasons at the realism's expense? Not to mention that Skilled and Gifted were carefully designed with game balance in mind rather than made to follow strict realism. No, the Fallout perks were meant to enhance roleplaying by allowing the ability to create many types of original characters regardless of how much realism would be lost. So in a real sense, the perks of the Fallout games were meant to defy realism by allowing creation of "abnormal" characters. In fact, this is exactly why Fallout's creation system is so versatile in designing all sorts of characters. Arguably, if strict realism would have been adhered to, the Fallouts wouldn't have allowed you to design nearly as many builds. Ironic isn't it?

Warriors of the Eternal Sun and Shadowrun were excellent back then. Actually if I remember correctly Warriors and Buck Rogers were conversions of PC originals. Super Hydlide, I have to admit I heard so much about how the game sucked that I never got around to try it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Buck Rogers was a console port of the popular PC Gold Box game. From what I understand, I don't believe that Warriors of the Eternal Sun was a port but it was made by the same people who made those great GB games-SSI. So was another excellent PC-style RPG on the Turbo-Grafx16, Order of the Griffon. I must admit that I wouldn't recommend Super Hydlide today to modern players. The horrible graphics (even by 16 bit standards) were pretty awful. However, back then it was quite the gem. If you were able to ignore the graphics, you would fine a pretty original game in terms of gameplay. Too bad it didn't catch on which I would attribute to the fact that most console gamers are into JRPGS and totally look over the PC-style gems that the Genesis had.

DING DING DING!!!! :D (w00t) I love you Darque! Finally, someone understands! I have been harping on this point for years! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> At the same time, many people like their characters to be unique. I can see the merit in Gromnir's stance that focusing on the antagonist could create for better stories. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If it is a story about the antagonist I have no problem with this. However, the BG series was not about the antagonist but about YOU and YOUR story as a Bhaalspawn, Child of the Lord of Murder. Maybe people saw it differently, but to me, after BG1, I felt that it was pretty firmly established that the series was going to be about your character and his/her role in the prophecy to either fulfill his/her destiny as the next Lord of Murder or destroy him. It wasn't about Sarevok's rise to power(which is why I felt it was the right thing to not have overly developed Sarevok's character in BG1), or Irenicus' rise to power, or Melissan's rise to power.. It was about you. SoA broke that mold... broke that pattern. And to me it was the anomaly of the series.

About the only thing I remember expecting from BG2 when I first installed it was, "it better be good or I'm going back to Torment." It was good, and I went back to Torment anyway. Win-win. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> haha!

And that's the thing.. Most of the improvement BG2 had over 1, were all of the structural/aesthetic type.. And the few real improvements like character interaction were offset by some crappy implementations.

Yes, I did like BG1' storyline better too. The whole Irenicus sucking life out of a big tree to achieve immortality just sounded a bit corny to me. It seemed like someone was running out of ideas..

I never really thought of it that way.. But in the most general sense, I would have to agree with you that both dialogue systems were incomplete. However, if you place more weight on the PC initiating the conversation as opposed to the NPCs doing the initiating, than Torment would have the better dialogue system to you. OTOH, If you prefer your NPCs to do the initiating (like in JRPGs) than BG2 might have the better dialogue system. But since people like to have full control of their own character in a CRPG, I would think that at least among the PC RPG crowd, players prefer the former to the latter.

I think one's enjoyment of BG2 was really contingent upon (to some extent) how much the time-triggered dialogue system bothered you. If it didn't, then you probably enjoyed it more than someone that it did bother. Also, if you weren't expecting a PC-centered game after BG1, then you would probably enjoy BG2 more.