gloomseeker

I absolutely LOVE good old BG but frankly if you leave aside the ruleset (definitely an acquired taste) you have to recognize that originally the BG1 NPCs were a bit paper thin. There is a reason why the NPC mod for BG1 is probably one of the best mods for the game. The strength of Baldur's Gate was to take the fundamental fight between Good and Evil (a common trope in fantasy) and turn it into an internal conflict within the main character's soul. The struggle between Good and Evil becomes the inner struggle to embrace or reject the legacy of the Bhaalspawn. There are some nice things there, but I think that even black&white good vs evil isn't done too well, as I find it far too difficult to play as evil character - quests simply don't support it much. Sure, you can kill random NPC to balance it out, but that's not much fun. What Baldur's Gates did so well is to use gameplay loops as narrative fuel. You murder thousands of creatures and instead of it clashing with your character, BG uses it as part of the story and addresses it multiple times head on. Lack of choice works because no matter who you want to be in the end you are the Bhaalspawn. A bit of "would you kindly" there. Struggle is less with what you choose to do, but that what you do in the game is at odds which whom you probably want to be as the character. I mean you can side with the vampires and channel your inner alien...but there are issues with the reputation system. I can't think of too many RPGs that allow you to play good or evil with such a colorful cast of characters. The motivation is there too, not to just be a brain dead murderhobo, but one realizing his/her full potential as a Child of Bhaal. There is nothing I enjoy more than playing an evil character in a CRPG and the BG series does offer many opportunities if you're playing that way. By that I don't mean the braindead options of killing everyone but the more subtle ways an evil manipulative Bhaalspawn would rely on. I have many examples of things you can do in the game. There is the obvious lies that the game allows you to choose and you can consistently be dishonest and callous in many ways while maintaining the pretense of being a decent person in front of your party. You can also play around with what the game allows for instance selling Melicamp to Thalantyr for a little gold (after all mages have to eat too). The game is rife with possibilities. On this subject I do believe a smart evil protagonist would rather trust good and loyal characters who are dependable rather than surround himself or herself with psychos. Jaheira may not be happy about the outcome of some encounters but as long as you're not too obvious she will stick by your side whereas Xzar and Monty are not the most reliable kind. The good thing about playing an evil character is that you don't have to find a loophole to justify some actions (like getting the Silver Pantaloons which is something no goody two shoes should ever do). Last but not least in BG2 I can see very few reasons for an evil character to free Viconia from her pyre. Chances are an evil character would be roasting marshmallows while making friends with the Cleric of Beshaba. I've tried playing an evil guy in Deadfire and I did like the Intimidate options (I had gone through the first game picking the worst possible outcomes just for fun). My only regret is that it is a bit too easy not to alienate followers.Sure they can be annoyed but they will love you if you crack some jokes and apart from some guy (I won't be specific about because it's the no spoiler forum) who will quit in relation to certain quest even if you're lying through your teeth it's pretty smooth sailing.

I absolutely LOVE good old BG but frankly if you leave aside the ruleset (definitely an acquired taste) you have to recognize that originally the BG1 NPCs were a bit paper thin. There is a reason why the NPC mod for BG1 is probably one of the best mods for the game. The strength of Baldur's Gate was to take the fundamental fight between Good and Evil (a common trope in fantasy) and turn it into an internal conflict within the main character's soul. The struggle between Good and Evil becomes the inner struggle to embrace or reject the legacy of the Bhaalspawn. That's the reason why I believe BG is still relevant and meaningful today in ways that Icewind Dale is not.

If your only motivation to play the game is getting more levels then you may be missing the point. Considering you find the game frustrating you should probably just move on.

Balance is happiness. Best you can do is to pursue it. Only to realise it is but an illusion once you have it in your grasp.

I prefer turn based games myself. No need to hit the space key so much.

It is heart warming to see powergaming is not a lost art.

Different times, different standards bruv. What games and systems could get away with then is far more than now. Internet is bigger and angrier than before. Certain level of qol and balance now expected or moan moan moan moan moan moan. Bg2 would get ripped a new arsehole for its foibles if it dropped as a new game now. I loved ad&d but at its worst is oblique nonsense. Back then most of audience for bg was vaccinated against it. Is not case now. Like u just have to look at the general reponse to knigmakers cavalier attitude re: balancing etc to see what would happen. As for balancing the game, im all for it. I appreciate not being funnelled into one build/comp every single time. Fair points. There is no denying that BG was pretty confusing for people who didn't play pen and paper AD&D back then. As a guy who had a great time playing a Beastmaster and decided to play one just because it's considered to be the least powerful class I can relate to what you're saying but I also believe that it's also up to the player to step away from the beaten path and experiment with builds that may not look like powerhouses but which may turn out to be quite fun. I don't envy the devs who have to cater both to fans who want to be challenged and wish to push the limits and the general public who expect to be able to go through the game without giving any thought about a build. With that perspective it becomes rather easy to understand why Diablo 3 is what it is and why it's been streamlined so much. Different times indeed.

I literally stopped playing the first Pillars because of all the rebalancing that was ongoing at the time it came out. That alone is the reason why it took me years to go back and finish the first game (that and the pathfinding issues which are just a bad memory in Deadfire). Personally I don't see the point of balancing a single player game and frankly having to deal with updates turning things upside down so that the build you've been working on turns out to be a complete mess is just a nuisance. I've played IE games for years. Everybody kept ranting about how certain classes and multiclasses were OP in Baldur's Gate 2 Throne of Bhaal. Many would be going on and on about Kensais dualled into Mages or Thieves at higher levels and how broken they would be (choosing by the way to ignore the fact that a low level Kensai is just a liability -but I guess most people never bothered playing one under level 7). There was no question of balance and yet it did worked. In AD&D2 at high levels a Fighter is nothing more than a bodyguard for a flamethrower (i.e. a Mage) but in order to get there the spellcaster has to be incredibly patient and very careful about his actions (let me remind you guys that a level 1 Mage had only one spell per day). That's how things used to balance themselves in these games. Sure, in good old BG2 there were some classes and kits that looked less powerful like for instance the Beastmaster but others just had an untapped potential like for instance the Jester (overshadowed by the Blade but in all fairness Jesters have the best song in the game) and in the end it was just another way of adding some challenge to the game (and then finding out some new tricks out of necessity). I don't think a single player game should strive for absolute balance because it only brings more hassle for players who have to try and keep up with patch notes to find out whether or not some abilities they've been focusing their builds on have been nerfed. At the end of the day it's just no fun at all but that's only my opinion so you're more than welcome to disagree.

Need I remind you that Deadfire had a huge overhaul patch shortly after its release? We were playing a different game every two months or so. That was maddening. It was nothing compared to the first Pillars though. Besides I did play Deadfire at release and completed it and didn't experience any game breaking bug. I wish I could say the same about Pathfinder Kingmaker (which hopefully will live up to its potential once it's fully patched).

JRPGs are not in the same category IMHO. It's not that they are better or worse, they just are different and it's like comparing apples and oranges. I'm pretty sure that most of us wouldn't have the same expectations if we knew a game is a JRPG or a Western RPG. The silent character in Monster Hunter World is jarring because cutscenes make it is obvious that he (or she) never says anything while NPCs keep rambling on and on. It's definitely a Japanese thing but it's still a bit weird and creates some distance with the narrative. Still, it depends on the game. I was never under the impression that the main character in Fallout New Vegas was dumb and couldn't speak despite being voiceless. If the game is a story driven game with a predefined protagonist then I'm all for it. For instance I don't like that the main character in Far Cry 5 is silent because having a voiced character in Far Cry 3 and 4 gave them a personality (even if the main character in Far Cry 3 was a spoiled brat). I know these are not RPGs but that's exactly the point I'm trying to make. If I'm creating my own character I'd rather have the freedom to imagine how the lines would sound in my head. That's one of the reasons why I couldn't care less about the main character in Fallout 4 and why I'm glad that Obsidian's Outer Worlds won't have a voiced protagonist. Bottom line full voice overs are costly and don't necessarily bring much to the table. For instance I see many people complaining about the narrator in Deadfire. Plus there is always the problem that if you read faster than the voice over (which is most certainly the case) you're tempted to skip to the next line in which case the voice over is just a source of annoyance. Last but not least how effective is it to pick a dialogue option just to sit back and listen to the voice actor saying the exact same line you've selected? Worst case scenario you realise that the phrase is not exactly the same and that the option you've picked was misleading so from then on you have to second guess every choices you make... Plus when it comes to mods not having voice overs make things so much easier. I really like it (I've preordered it just like I did with Deadfire) but the bugs did prevent me from getting beyond the opening of the game. I will probably get back to the game once I'm done with Deadfire. The problem is that you can't judge a game on its potential if it consistently fails to deliver.

That pisses me off. These days any game gets an RPG tag and it's just silly... Monster Hunter World is in no way an RPG unless going on a loop killing monsters and upgrading gear is what RPing is about. I'm not saying it can't be fun but people keep stretching the definition so much that frankly it has become meaningless. Hell, even Assassin's Creed Odyssey with its binary choices is more of an RPG than Monster Hunter World could ever be with its silent protagonist... Yes, that's right, the main character in Monster Hunter World never talks and nobody finds it weird (imagine Commander Shepard never saying anything at all, that wouldn't fly) maybe it's a Japanese thing (Dragonball Xenoverse was the same) but surely it doesn't make up for great roleplaying. Bard's Tale IV got a shoddy release which is rather unfortunate and explains why it barely created a ripple. Kingdom Come Deliverance is a bit too janky to qualify as the best (and I really do like the game but to say it is rough around the edges is an understatement). A better RPG pick would be Pathfinder Kingmaker but it is still broken despite being full of promise.For an old fan of IE games it ticks all the right boxes but it's only fair to say the game still needs some more time before it gets there. The only real contender for Deadfire would have been the Definitive Edition for DOS2 but the original game came out last year so it doesn't qualify. Frankly going over this list I can't really think of a game released in 2018 that could qualify over Deafire.

Wow, finding them is already a challenge!

I've got a 1.7 GB update on Steam which shouldn't be taking too much time but I don't think I'll have much time to play tonight (let alone make up my mind regarding which character I'm going to play for my second run and whether or not I'm going to stick to the plan and play a Berserker/Streetfighter).

I'm not saying the ship system is any good but it would have been pretty bad if there was none in a game where you're meant to be spending quite some time travelling on the sea and exploring islands.

About 5 hours from now according to Steam.

What are dead horses for if not taking a beating? Some people like increasing the difficulty with ultra hardcore modes, personally I'd rather slow the XP gain in order to avoid hitting the limit prematurely and increase the challenge.

In my personal opinion having quest level indicators is pointless but then again I mostly play with as little extra information as possible (big fan of expert mode here but not really into the path of the damned nonsense). This reminds me of what I hated the most about the Witcher 3, all the level gating and all the pointless levels everywhere. With that being said if you're going to put that sort of nonsense in your game you should make sure it is working as planned.

Gromnir said it above. Just quit. Nothing prevents you from coming back to the game when you're in the right mood for it. I did play PoE1 when it first came out but I ended up putting the game on ice for more than a year simply because I got fed up with pathfinding issues and all the patching and rebalancing which made me feel like the game kept messing with my builds. When I later came back to the game I picked up White March and eventually had a blast (despite some issues). There is a time for everything and sometimes it's just not the right time. It reminds me of that guy who posted a scathing thread on a Steam forum after spending 70 hours playing a game he didn't even like and as a result ended up hating it with a passion. In the end pushing through only means that you're punishing yourself.

Incidentally, if you go back to PoE1 after playing Deadfire for some time, you instantly notice something significant: in-battle pathfinding in PoE1 is terrible. I would actually go so far as to argue that it's your most likely cause of death (or at least very serious trouble). Thankfully, it's so much better in Deadfire, although it's not quite perfect. Definitely. It took me a very long time to summon the energy to get through PoE 1 because of the terrible pathfinding issues and it's probably the number one reason I haven't revisited the game although I've been meaning to take another character through both games. 4 members felt a bit too small for a party in Tyranny but 5 in Deadfire is probably the right number.

Plus pathfinding issues.

Cutting down XP gain by 50% wouldn't hurt the game IMHO.

I don't put much stock in awards but most people do like them. Frankly the options don't make much sense, you can't put together Western RPGs and Jrpgs, let alone games that barely qualify as computer roleplaying games.

In all fairness if you're going to post on the Codex you probably don't want to be sober.

Nice. I like the multiplier idea, it's simple and if the value works it will make the end of the game more rewarding (nothing is worse than hitting an invisible wall and thus being stopped dead in your progression even if arguably you've already maxed out your character).

Water supply? After all that's the entire premise of the first Fallout.