Shadeheart

True but you forget Obsidian has a secret weapon. There is much to be said of this Chris of the Avellone line.

I think you forgot to mention the real reason Kane is a disturbing villain. Joe Kucan (hope I got that right) does not age.

Sarevok (BG), Irenicus (BG2), the Master (Fallout), Kerghan (Arcanum), the Architect (DA:O-A) and Meredith (DA2) were great antagonists with their own understandable (though twisted) views and agendas. Akachi from MotB was sort of intersting, though in a bit different way. The worst couple of villains I've ever seen in CRPG are Archdemon and Loghain from DA:O. One is a ridiculously underwhelming Old God that remains unseen, hiding in underground tunnels for the whole game, then pops up for the final battle only to be defeated in a matter of minutes by the magic powers of hot witch sex and a couple of ballistae; while minority-oppressing, slave-trading, incompetent-assassins-hiring, having-a-pompous-douchebag-for-a-second-in-command Loghain is so cartoonishly villainous that all the talks of his past heroics and being a great general sound like some incredible stunt by his PR team. Oh man, how I loled at that. I completely agree. I forgot about the archdemon because well...he's utterly forgettable.

That was really interesting Exodiark, thanks for sharing.

The reviews do Alpha Protocol no justice. It got ripped apart for a lot of stuff that other games that scored highly also had, and the stuff it did well got glossed over as well. AP has fantastic replayability because of the different ways your decisions can alter/change the way future quests play out. Unlike a lot of games that advertise it as such, in AP choices *do* matter and have actual consequences in the game. I have to agree, the majority of reviews did not do the game justice. Yes it can be a mess at times, there is no AI to speak of, some of the weapons are crap and the engine can look hideous, but I still enjoyed it. It is still a great role playing experience if not a very good "game" (mechanics wise). With a little more polish and lots more PC optimization, it would have been spectacular. As it stands its the perfect example of how a game's reach can exceed its grasp. For what its worth, RPS had a balanced review. Its still a little harsh but that is subjective. My opinion was a little more forgiving. TBH I'm surprised the game hasn't had the fan patch treatment that Vampire Bloodlines got. That thing was damn near unplayable upon release.

Irenicus is a frustrating villain. For me, he is a good villain that started with the possibility for greatness. When I first played BG2, the entire first area ('Chateau Irenicus', as its been dubbed) gave off two major themes: 1) The guy running it is a real sick puppy. 2) He is interested in experimenting on people, in the case of Charname for the sake of tapping his/her power. There was a suggestion, a hint, that Irenicus was interested in drawing out and enhancing your power. His motivations are not given. This lead me to think: what if this 'villain', despite being a sick puppy, is in fact genuinely trying to 'help' my character in his own twisted way? How interesting would it be to have a primary antagonist who is completely monstrous in every aspect, save that his long-term goal actually advances your character's interests in some fashion? And your choice in this game amounts to either opposing him because he is so monstrous and terrible, or aiding him with the hope that his work will make you that much more powerful? All of this was building in my head until Spellhold. Then I found out he just wanted to steal my soul and indulge in some smug gloating, and that, no matter what character I was playing, I would have to beat him up in the end game. Bummer. Hmm. My feeling about him were similar to yours for the first bit of the game. Right up to spellhold all I wanted to do was kill him a thousand times over. But once I got to the dialogue between him and , that changed. I felt sorry for the bastard, I still hated him of course, especially for what he did to Imoen but killing him now became almost an act of mercy. This is why it still resonates with me. In that I guess, you and I disagree.

I'm partial to Irenicus almost purely because of David Warner's voice. Also, he was very well written. His motivations were understandable for one thing. That to me at least, is an important bit to get right. Darth Revan from KOTOR blew my mind too, albeit, more because of the unexpected revelation that he brought (And I dont even like Star Wars that much). An example of one done wrong? The Reapers from Mass Effect. And no, its not because of the way the game ended (I've blogged about that before and wont go into it here). But because after the fantastic job Bioware did with their introduction in ME1 (I absolutely love the franchise btw), the subsequent titles did little to give them any sense of personality at all. The whole "We are too advanced and bad ass for your puny mind to comprehend" trope is nothing but a cop out. Taking out a villain should be a palpable thing, act that connects deeply on an emotional level, not just a hollow achievement that says "I beat the game".

Absolutely. Part of making any world "real" is to have believable characters in it. A large part of this is to make said characters as fleshed out as possible. Emotional resonance is one of the many reasons Obsidian is so loved. Cant have that with companions that do not respond like actual people. Case in point, Neverwinter Nights 2. That game had some really good characters. (Why Neeshka? WHYYYYY?)

Aaaw man this sucks. I'm leaving for a short trip in a few hours. Headed to some place with no wifi. I'm gonna miss the countdown. Hope the video stays up for a while. At least till I'm back. Grrrr.

Obsidian just shared this via twitter and I just had to spread the love. http://i.imgur.com/uXdxc.gif. Pay special attention to the text.

Well at least the game paused so that I may rage at the screen without further compromising my half eaten face. Tbh I could never recreate that moment.

This is true. The banter in DAO was surprisingly good imo.

Though repetitive dialogue irritates me too, there have been times where it came in handy. Especially if a phonecall/doorbell meant that I missed something. A little randomness is almost necessary imo, if only to maintain the illusion of party members being “real” in some sense of the word. The trouble of course, is the hilarity that ensues if a conversation triggers at the wrong time. Like Aerie commenting on Viconia’s hair while a troll is eating my face. (Gods but she could whine!) Frankly, the easiest way around this is to do the following: Make sure conversations trigger strictly out of combat away from hostile areas. As Domigorgon mentioned, implementing the “log” system as in BG. Give players the choice of having dialogue loops on/off , ie, make it an option in the “gameplay” menu. One the most unfortunate side effects of console penetration was the near complete loss of customization. Go back and look at the sheer number of things you could tweak in BG2. Having the ability to tailor game feedback was one of the defining tings about the PC as a platform. We need to bring that back.

Aaw thanks you guys! (blushes)

Off the top of my head, it took around 9-10 days. Not surprising, things must me CRAZY over at Obsidian HQ right now.