Sven_

I consider some things to be quite significant, though I fully agree that you don't need to know the inside-outs to ever play these games (makes it easier though, and adds another layer of depth on top). Another one: spell/ability scaling. On PoE outside of accuracy bonus AFAIK it made no much difference if a level 1 spell was cast by a level 1 wizard or a level 14 one -- assuming they both had the same base attributes (and no bonus to them). This time around though there is the power level gains, which add significant bonus depending on the char's power level gained to damage/heal, penetration as well as durations. Speaking about power levels -- is it acknowledged anywhere whether AI characters have power levels too? Or is it simply something introduced so that for the player characters, there is some scaling whilst leveling up going on. And whilst we're at it, it seems curious that my priest's abilities seem to scale differently to my mages. Usually it seems a +5% gain for every power level above the spells/abilities in terms of damage and duration... but my priest sees some of his spells beefed up by 10%, some even by 20%, despite both mage and priest being on the same character and power level as such. So there seem some class based differences too. As of the priest, this seems to apply to his core priest spells, e.g. holy radiance only.

There's also a decent Wiki! That said, one thing it doesn't say is how exactly spells and abilities would be modified by the power level (exact numbers/factors on durations, penetration, etc). Seeing this thread, a section where the differences between Deadfire and Pillars are listed may come in handy, though. https://pillarsofeternity2.wiki.fextralife.com/Power+Level

Often times the case -- on standard levels of difficulty, you doN't have to master/game the systems as much. I think this game (PoE too) could do with better documentation. The rules, whilst some are vastly streamlined from say D&D mechanics -- they're still comprehensive enough that they could ship with their own manual. I think PoE was quite opaque on some things just as well. For instance, how the accuracy for spells was calculated (the bonus), that was never ever explained anywhere in the game afaik. Likewise, going from PoE to Deadfire is also somewhat comparable to making the jump from one D&D edition to another. There's entire sets of new mechanics introduced, such as the power levels, and several more. Unlike a tabletop ruleset, it's only ever used for a single campaign. In a sense, some of the Infinity Engine games could feel less "complex" in parts simply because they kept a few of the stuff "under the hood" though. Whilst the combat logs on Deadfire are now as detailed and comprehensive as ever.

Cheers, quality stuff. I'm still trying to soak it all in. Purely speaking about interrupts, that looks a huge overhaul. So basically in Poe1: - Every hit could in theory interrupt an opponent - As you say, this was a passive check on every hit roll In PoE2: - Interrupts are tied to skills/abilities - They are also only triggered after a several interrupts (determined by the concentration of the opponents) Any overhaul to the effects of an interrupt?

I've just started playing proper (after completing PoE again). There's got to be some actual numbers displayed both for interupt and concentration still, somewhere? Also, curiously, my priests holy radiance seems to have the ability to interrupt, even though it doesn't say so in the ability's description (I may be wrong). Is there a detailed write-up on the entire overhaul here made, also the Maths behind somewhere? Curiously, the starting stats between classes have further leveled as well. Every class is starting with an accuracy of 20, the defenses seem more leveled out as well (in particular deflection). A bit odd that -- but seeing how Josh has never been a fan of strictly class based systems, perhaps the natural path of evolution. I still think the "attraction" of a class based system is that, well classes are best as distinct as possible (I have no preference here if a char system is class based or isn't as such). Naturally the abilities are meant to provide the difference here, and leveling the base stats makes for easier balancing. E.g. starting out as a mage on Baldur's Gate at level 1 may have been a bit rough on some newbies to D&D games, whilst picking a fighter, completely different experience.

Re: People not playing PoE2 due to PoE1 continuation: There had been talks about possible sequels to PoE being a continous story with decisions from one game to the next taking over from the start. E.g. The project never was meant to be a Witcher. However whether you played PoE or not can impact how you experience the game virtually from the start quite a bit. Commercially, perhaps not a good move. But then this was first conceived as a "fan's game", wasn't it? This shows how screwed up things can be in particular in the AAA space -- enough is never enough. As of Deadfire, there appear be hopes of it outperforming PoE. https://www.mcvuk.com/business/versus-evil-obsidian-is-one-of-the-top-tier-rpg-developers-plain-and-simple

In the same one that sees X-Com sequels getting made, whilst Command&Conquer is put on indefinite hiatus. You couldn'T see this coming in 1997 when Interplay signed Battleground Infinity Baldur's Gate, likely, nor in 2004, for that matter.

I've only filtered bits of Deadfire so far -- first gone back replaying PoE again as a priest of Eothas to carry over the save in "Story Mode". :D This is something that confused me, and I've yet not further looked at it. In the in-game docs for Deadfire for instance it states that interrupt is still boosted by Perception (ditto attribute boosts for concentration) -- but neither does this bonus show anywhere next to the attributes. Nor is there an interrupt/concecntration value displayed in the character's sheet anymore. Unless, I was missing something in my quick look. AFAIR even the entire mechanics are described completely like they are in PoE1 in the tooltips. May be wrong though.

Finally picked up my copy of Deadfire. I also have my final PoE1 save from 2015 on my HD. However, I'm actually pondering about starting from the beginning as an Eothas Priest and playing him "in character" a bit -- same as importing the decisions from there. My main char was a ranger, and tbf it's been a while. Ideally that'd be a quick run, perhaps even in story time mode plus "short cutting" a few of the opening areas via cheats console commands. Hope that won't affect the imported save then though?

He said if PoE2 was a sales success. It's hard to tell, but the numbers on Steam look less than for PoE1 in the meantime -- any further development on Tyranny was also stopped save for a DLC after that didn't meet expectations. However, there was also that talk about doing a turn based combat game or more like a "Skyrim" type of game in the Pillars universe. Speaking about "easier money" -- that's what they basically did on Icewind Dale at Black Isle back then. Just take existing tech, Bioware's Infinity Engine, don't much iterate upon it, make a more stripped down dungeon and combat based game. You could argue that was similar to what had happened with the Gold Box D&D Games a decade earlier at SSI too. Keep the tech, just release a new adventure. What that means that even at a fraction of the sales of BG, it still brought in the money. However, I have the feeling the full VO and stuff in Deadfire was in parts included after the runaway success of Original Sin 2. Who would have thought that a turn based series would ever outperform something far more visceral? Certainly not anybody at the Codex. I personally hope Obsi can keep doing this, smaller scale projects aside of their Fallout:New Vegas and Pillars:Skyrim, as I've personally both enjoyed PoE and Tyranny overall quite a bit. This includes the prospect of a turn based game -- due to the current mechanics, which in parts seem more suited to that kind of thing, combat can be more micro intensive than it ever much was on any Infinite Engine game.

Some general musings as to sales of this type of game in general: There was an interview with Josh Sawyer a couple months ago that went a little bit into this stuff, also touching upon Tyranny, which was perceived as having not performed as well as expected. It also touched upon a possible player/genre fatigue too. According to Josh, he doesn't think that's quite there yet. Still back in 2012, on top of the nostalgia for the IE games the Kickstarter banked upon -- there hadn't really been much of this type of game in like a decade. That's changed kind a bit -- in my perception even considering how things used to be like back then. Black isle/Bioware used to inhibit this specific niche of isometric party-based RPGs with (real-time) tactical combat for the most part. That may be my perception, but in terms of choice there is more going on now. In particular if you add smaller indies and crowdfunded games on top of that. However, outside of Baldur's Gate, this had never been a huge "hit" thing. It was profitable or wouldn't have kept getting made. However, I think if Sports Interactive or Out Of The Park Development had more competition in their sizeable niche, they'd find this a bit more challenging too. The big publishers don't go anywhere near what they do (similar to this one -- they are mainly structured for the big projects exclusively) -- and for independents it's tough to crack their niche, as they've made it all their own completely. It "helps" a bit that really somewhat decent sport simulations are probably some of the more complex things to code. Which is a technological entry level barrier that for point&click adventure games doesn't exist at all. And for RPGs, it depends on the scale of the project.

So is anybody playing Deadfire as Eothas priest? Back then on PoE I only played bits up to Caed Nua with the main char being one. Thinking about whether it may be worthwile to play through the entire "saga" as one, also given that Eothas is now given a bit more centre stage and could allow for interesting... scenarios to play out?

Not having played Deadfire yet: I can respect the opinion that games, RPGs, should be a certain kind of length. What I detest is that this has somewhat become the yard stick to judge games by. This goes for RPGs in particular. Reason why: RPGs have a long-term history of adding (filler) content just so that you have more hours to pour into them, and that's not merely MMOs. Additionally, a lot of games could be a lot more focused and better if the filler was left out and the good stuff was in and iterated upon. Think the Raedric quest from PoE. Fallout 1 too can be one of the shorter RPG experiences in your lifetime depending on how you play it. Heck, you can waltz from the starting location straight into the endgame, there's nobody holding you back if you know how and are skilled for it. And it still remains one of the boldest RPG designs to this day precisely because of it. It also remains one of a kind likely because for that reason too. Every quest was designed to have a multitude of solutions (think Raedric in PoE), and it's hard to get that in unlimited numbers unless you are on an infinite budget. This is relevant for this kind of game, no less as it will never have the budget of a Witcher. If you go down that route, then you're just doing the same, but less of it. This was a criticism also leveled at Tyranny. I'd argue it wasn't so much that Tyranny was "too short". It was that the main narrative ended abruptly, just when it appeared to approach the climax and kick into overdrive. PoE also had that "pacing issue" here, where after a fairly "padded" mid-game suddenly the entire thing fell into place just seconds before the end credits rolled. However, if you are promoting your game as a sort of successor to epics such as BG, then that carries certain kind of understandable expectations.

I think we've now invested a lot into the engine such that that making a Pillars of Eternity III will be easier, where if we had not invested much in the engine then we would have had to make a lot of changes between Pillars II and Pillars III. Buck: Wait, did you just announce Pillars of Eternity III right here, right now? Feargus: [LAUGHTER] Well, obviously, yes. If Eternity II is a sales success, we will be selling that and doing an Eternity III. http://www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/118557-pillars-of-eternity-ii-deadfire-interview/all-pages.html

Yes, absolutely. By the way, the Throne Of Bhaal expansion to BG2 has a very similar structure, actually. I was shocked firing it up immediately after SoA -- and was actually quite underwhelmed. I think it's not nearly as atmospheric or well laid out as Icewind Dale though. The ending made up for it a bit, but... I think the first IWD is the superior one -- from all the IE titles, I like IWD2 the least. The areas in the second are a bit hit and miss (and some recycled from the first), and it's not as well structured. However, considering the circumstance under which it was made it's almost a miracle that they a) didn't only pull of a finished proper last hooray to the engine. But also b) managed to sneak in a working transition to the 3rd edition D&D ruleset.

That said, Icewind Dale, in particular the first one, needs some luvin'. https://www.pcgamesn.com/icewind-dale-enhanced-edition/looking-back-why-its-still-worth-bracing-against-the-cold-in-icewind-dale Compared to your typical dungeon crawl there's a lot more going on, and I don't merely mean the diverse locations you get to clear from beasties visit . One moment that I will always remember fondly is how they even pulled off a little twist right in the midst of crawling a multi-level dungeon in Yxonumei's lair. Might&Magic, Diablo and company just didn't do this. If you consider that both IWD projects in particular weren't as large in scale as the BGs or PST -- I wouldn't mind if Obsi would one day do similar again to keep things going.

Josh made the "mistake" of namedropping Bethesda games to get his point accross. The main point I think wasn't so much about games being simplified, or action based or anything like that. It was that a) players tend to think squarely into their lazy comfortably boxes. And as b) developer you either do likewise or are forced to do so also. A far better idea would it have been to bring up Lookin Glass Games, but then it's a studio that folded in the early 2000s. Not because their specific take on all things CRPGs would be the one to rule all. But precisely for their willingness to keep challenging themselves, their players alike. http://web.archive.org/web/19980224020118/www.lglass.com/p_info/dark/manifesto.html http://web.archive.org/web/19980224014214/http://www.lglass.com:80/p_info/dark/howdo.html Best quote ever. That said, variety is the spice of life. I'll happily play something like PoE or Tyranny alongside to, say, Prey -- a game perceived as "Bioshock knock-off" by many last year but really really having more opportunity to "role-play" than some self-proclaimed RPGS. In an ideal world, there's room for everything. As developers oft may discover already when getting their games kicked off (no crowd funding, no PoE!) -- this isn't an ideal world. That's the flipside of the entire Crowdfunding concept, by the way. As players we far too often demand what we think we want for far too many reasons to discuss.

Bloody Germans initially did it just as well. Seems the authorities had sorted that one quickly..... Arrr! [What a fitting way to launch the press for a game like this though]

Basically, fans (and generally players) tend to list what they think they want rather than what they really want for far too many reasons to discuss. One of them being fairly obvious: You don't know whether something is awesome until you actually get to play it. That's just the truth, and I am no different. Plus, some of the best games in the history of gaming had probably never been made with that mindset. Thanks to post-mortems on places such as Gamasutra we know some iconic games involved serious doubt and angst expressed right at the studio. On occasion up until a mere weeks upon the final release. The post mortem of Thief The Dark Project is glorious and mandatory here. Had Thief been a product tailor-made for the System Shock and Underworld crowd, it's debatable if that had come to pass much. Too much "Don't think I'm ever going to enjoy this / This is just not going to work / nothing like those games" concerns and all. In the end despite some drastic departures, the game appeared to be universally acclaimed even by fans of the former. Likewise, when it was announced Baldur's Gate was to feature a "real-time" rendition of AD&D of kinds, the Usenet did probably explode like a blood sausage all the same. That can be the flipside of the entire concept of crowd-funding to me; in particular if it encourages significant input over the direction development may take. There's also the additional risk of backlash due to a perception of very specific "promises" not being met (which is totally understandable also on the player's end) -- regardless of the overall quality of the game, which may drive added cautious. I personally find it at least somewhat disheartening for instance that Josh Sawyer as one of the main system designers goes on record of saying that he actually doesn't hugely much like class based character systems -- yet does so mainly out of promise (Infinity Engine games are class based, so class based this will be). I'm fine with classes, btw. Just saying as I'd be curious what the lads had in mind if they were given "free reign". Realistically, any kind of development is a compromise, though. There's a difference between all that and taking quality feedback on board, naturally. Plus, as players actually get to play current Beta builds, it's a bit of a different communication process to fans voicing concerns back on the Bio boards or wherever.

"Traditional" RPGs are often times missing on this, which is kind of odd, as in a pen&paper experience you have multiple ways around an opponent (obviously, with a DM master running the game, rather than a computer script). But what's oft totally forgotten that you also can't just "beat" trolls. You may, I don't know lure them into a fire pit, feed them poisoned food or sneak around them to knock them out or something. Of course, the basic "verbs" in traditional RPGs are often times "run" or "gun", basically. "Gunning" means killing the beast once and for all, and "running" boils down to: come back later when stronger (or, if possible, simply run past it). Compare this to what the glorious, glorious Looking Glass Technologies had to say about their Underworld Games (and... often times delivered). The more recent Prey which I've mentioned elsewhere is of a similar mold. Boy did I enjoy finding "creative" means of dealing with opponents. The game oft would even encourage me to find them. Like, damn, I really can't get past these two baddies. They're big and strong, I'm low on ammo and barely have any health anymore too. But wait a minute, is that a glass ceiling up there over their heads? Maybe I can get on that floor above them, break the glass ceiling, knock that gas container over so that it may drop on the top of their heads... I know these are more "visceral" games in that they're real-time 3d first person, with fully simulated real-time physics. But it's odd that it seems something mainly reserved to that kind of experience often times. In particular due to that pen&paper heritage. If you ask me, PoE had introduced quite nice opportunities for this with its scripted "text interactions". Naturally PoE2 and a possibly part 3 may not be the kind of game to explore opportunities, as PoE is meant to be an Infinity Engine games throwback, and those games are of that specific ilk, largely (nothing wrong with it, as straight out combat is fun!). Thinking of the Raedric quest (which was my favourite in PoE1), with the multiple ways to infiltrate the hold and solve the quest, it sometimes comes close to this experience. There's ways around that place ditching the more traditional means of resolving encounters / getting past opponents in a traditional RPG almost altogether.

Whilst I personally think special counters should remain a challenge throughout (and the encounter design following suit) -- there's also something to be said about you initially entering a place, getingt your ass handed to you on a plate, only to come back later and completely steamrolling that place with a grin of vengeance on your face. Sure, it's a typical power fantasy thing of kinds, character growth to be seen and felt in action. And also one that each and every game containing serious enemy scaling has completely forgotten about. Obviously with various TES games being the worst (Oblivion). Some of the best examples to this day are the first Gothic games. However, they too aren't very open at the beginning due to how they do this, to say the least. Venture a few steps too far and too early into the harsher wilderness, and you're toast. Combat ballance is tricky. However anybody neglecting this neglects something fundamental to the experience, in particular in a game where combat is one of the main vehicles of character growth. As it tends to be in most CRPGs, except in a Fallout pascifist run, perhaps.

A long-term solution maybe to let go of that "pack-rat", "item" obsession. The first time I played BG1, I simply ignored the random drops. By BG2, those had become naturally far more sparse, and every location would at least contain two items of Awesome +3. Actually, recently going back to BG1, it's refreshing how many gaming and CRPG "dogma" that games challenges, if back then probably not all on purpose. It's obviously a game that was built by a still inexperienced team, and (for better and occasionally worse), it doesn't cater to the more obvious "lower" needs and instincts that may (or may not) glue a particular player permanently to the screen. In getting it at all done, the guys probably haven't yet had time to overly think about such. It's less candy and less trash at the same time, and it plays out far more "natural" than a lot games since.... that is, if you resist that urge to pack your inventory with random bolts, leather armor and daggers. I'm generally oft a "less is more" guy though, which includes other areas as well. I'd rather have ten spells in a game rather than three dozen, but those ten spells to be clearly distinguishable and each have their distinctive purpose. NWN2 too completely drowns you in all kinds of loot - and the supposedly "special" items don't feel any kind of special anymore when you can buy them from any bloke down the street. I'd go as far as arguing that the love for items in general can sometimes borderline onan obsession all itself. Whilst it may be incredibly fun to create all those items, invent names and stories for each of them -- at some point it oft all becomes just a massively Blur Of Insignificance, rather than Any Kind Of Truly Special +3. In Pen&Paper systems, all of those serve their purpose, have grown in numbers and size over years and years of playing, and are meant to remain fun over many many months to come -- in their respective campaigns. In video games though, you're lucky to see them all lasting throughout a single game, let alone two. Looting to me has oft felt like "busywork" thus -- in particular what happens after it, which is clearing your inventory again so the cycle can begin anew... The process itself is just streamlined by creating stashes, unlimited pockets, etc. What may need challenging is the entire "unlimited pockets" conundrum itself, who knows. Does every encounter need a reward in the form of physical objects? What is a reward, anyway? Etc. There's one recent game that made picking up trash kinda fun, actually. It's Arkane's Prey -- the System Shock successor Bioshock in mechanics never really was (and, which in truly Shock fashion, apparently nobody really played upon release). There's even designated recycling stations for it, crafting done right for once, and "picking up junk" kinda becomes second nature whilst playing.

Strongholds to me admittedly are like romances. Initially, both were introduced to individually games to add a few more depth to the experience. Ever since it seems they're features off a list to tick off, regardless of the overall vision / core of the game. Maybe me though. [Admittedly, I've never been all that hugely a fan of either, sometimes due to a matter of implementation. Romances in video games are oft pretty bland/bad in general -- when they basically boil down to unlocking the R-rated final encounter of the bed-side kind, I'd take Grim Fandango's style over boobies any day.] That said, if there's a stronghold, it ideally is something deep and rewarding, and be something inherent to the core vision to the game, rather than a feature stretch goal afterthought. It may even push a bit of the envelope of what you have typically seen in your average RPG stronghold before. Personally I think the historical RPG Josh Sawyer is envisioning at some point could be tailor-made around the entire concept of running a stronghold, in particular in medieval times. I didn't spend much time on the stronghold stuff in PoE at all (release version), and in Tyranny it didn't particularly engage me. I'm tempted to try it though if I get to replay before PoE 2 is due. To me this seems always running the risk of spreading development time / budget thin. Coincidentally I'm also playing NWN2 at the moment, where in the second chapter of the main campaign or getting a stronghold. But here too the general game / plot pushes into a completely different direction, and thus so far I hardly spend any time on it. Plus, NWN2 seems fairly content-heavy even without it too. What would be great if there was a narrative and a mechanical reason to at all run a stronghold, rather than it just granting typical RPG bonus (special loot and items, gold, a place to rest for free of charge). Imagine The Army Of Bad Guys threatening to invade the lands unfortified and unprotected. Mostly you're running that stronghold when actually you're doing something else completely -- like taking the battle to the Bad Guys, rather than the other way round. BG2 as the origin of the stronghold feature* (same as romances) naturally stretches the reasoning right in its first appearance. Your half-sis is in danger, your main task is basically finding means to getting to her, and then Bioware offers you that optional distraction of cleaning and running your own house first. Thinking about it, it might have actually been a rather thinly veiled personality test from the Doctors. That's where the additional "immersion" may come from: Rather than adding another few layers on top of that same core -- rethinking that core until it becomes the bumbling, bouncing, pouding heart of the thing. * wait, didn't you win your own Castle in Might And Magic 7 already?

As this thread was opened in the PoE thread, I personally think PoE is overall fine in that regard -- it was never meant to be "that kind of game" as outlined by Josh on the last page. There's one touch I even pretty much liked in particular early on. Which is that there's an actual "road" connecting Gilded Vale to Raedric's fortress, which also goes all the way straight to Caed Nua. If you want to, you can stay on the road, not face much danger, and walk straight into the coart yard. Only then I think for games as the scale of Pillar's that's a pretty neat touch -- it adds some "conistency" to the game world that Baldur's Gate 2 for instance lacked completely, where locations would pop up on your map the moment you heard of them, and a mouse click would transfer you to the destination. PoE2 is going to be a few more open and exploration based anyway, what with the ship. Really curious what they did to this. Naturally, what allowed Bioware back then to likely fairly quickly build these maps is that assets are obviously cloned all over, like trees, etc. In the original 640x480 pixels release and not much overview, that is only much apparent in the map screen granting an overview. I'd think in the current EE on contemporary resolutions, that would show a whole lot more. Pillars was never made like that, every map is hand-crafted and fairly unique -- and the game's build on a comparably moderate budget. I still think it's an interesting topic. I might also throw in the SChwarze Auge (Realms Of Arkania) trilogy of the 1990s. In particular the first two parts. Those were first and foremost "travelling" adventures too, where getting from A to B was a core part of the appeal. They even did something I've never seen since, which is including ressource and schedule management of resting camps. Setting up guard shifts when resting in the wilderness, giving somebody the task to hunt. This is also rarely to be seen in contemporary games, let alone approached in any game, as the main aim seems to railroad players through quests, make them connecting the dots between the two next plot progression points. In my opinion this is at it worst when it's blatantly obvious you're simply following the designer's bread crumbs. However the better games still maintain that illusion that this is really your own adventure chosen. It's definitely something though I'd love to see tackled again by another game.

I hope this won't considered to be thread necro, but there is some real good discussion here. Basically, I'm a bit casually playing BG too at the moment here and there. What I'm actually playing at the moment is NWN2, which I missed when it first came around. But a few nostalgie articles and that "D&D buzz" made me also install the game that back then almost cost me my final exams and have another look after a few years... Baldur's Gate. Original release, non EE. I love this quote. I think it was acknowledged that Baldur's Gate was developed by a team that -- for a large part -- had never developed a game of this scope before, or at least were rather inexperienced. If you contrast BG's exploration with any other major RPG, even of its time -- or if compare it to NWN2, the difference hits you like a Critical Hit. For the record, I loved the exploring the vast, oft empty spaces in BG1 in 1999. To a large degree, I still do now. Apparently I was in a minority, as BG2 took a different route altogether, and from then on for Bioware there wasn't a way back either way. BG made me realize what's gone missing since. Basically, "modern" games in particular are designed like a theme park or Awesome Obstacle Course™, where two packs of loot, enemies or quests to tackle are just around every corner. You generally won't visit a single area that isn't jam packed with stuff, and you can be assured that whatever place you're going to visit, it will contain either a critical path quest advancement, or a major side quest of sorts. Baldur's Gate 1 is one of the few RPGs where travelling feels like travelling. I had completely forgotten how there can be minutes where you won't meet anyone -- and then, all of a sudden, there's blood in the grass, you'll hear a few screams, and a pack of Gnolls comes charging in. Coupled with the low level D&D, where one hit may be fatal, at its best, that's just fantastic. Arguably this was only ever possible though due to that inexperienced staff back then. It's not likely much done on purpose. However, it challenges so many RPG and gaming paradigms. Reward the player at every opportunity. Give him tons of stuff to do. Never waste resources on areas that aren't going to contain anything either way. Etc. etc. It has its flipsides, naturally. Large chunks of the areas are really empty, and the quests are mostly cooky cutter. However, I wish somebody would take a closer look at the wilderness of the Sword Coast as presented in BG and once again run with it, for a change. At its best, this isn't so much your Awesome Obstacle Course or Theme Park: Sword Coast, but a world to explore. The still pretty decent ambient FX help to establish this, naturally, as do the night/day cycles and weather effects.