My history with these games and why POE is such a treat for me at this time of year

[Brandon Collette]

Hi everyone – just wanted to say hello and give you all some background on why I am posting, which is really just a way to promote homage to this incredible lineage of games.

I am a 37 year old accountant living in Canada and I made a life decision whereby I only play video games during the Christmas break between ~20^th of December to the first few days in the New Year.

Anytime anyone ever asks me about video games, I, without any hesitation, declare the Baldurs Gate series as the best games ever made. When I was in my early 20’s I played Baldurs Gate I & II over and over again. I was always willing to try any other game that claimed to have in-depth storytelling and an immersive experience but nothing ever came close to the experience of playing the BD series. To me it is an expression of how much detail and rich experience can be built into a video game.

For a variety of reasons I entirely stopped playing video games entirely sometime in my late 20’s / early thirties and in fact did not touch a video game for at least 7 years. While I was not gaming, I never forgot how much I loved the BG series and in fact I knew the Pillars of Eternity game had been released but I stayed away on purpose, committed to not playing video games.

Last Christmas, I found myself with a lot of unexpected time on my hands and decided I finally needed to scratch my “Pillars of Eternity” itch and see what the all stories were about. Would it maintain the amazing BG lineage? I decided to find out and last year, during the Christmas break I installed POE and was AMAZED at how brilliant this game was and what a gift it was for all the folks who were adherents to the BG experience. I played thought most, but not all, of POE I last year and just 3 days ago, now that Christmas Break has started, installed POE II.

Cheers everyone – these games have something to them that cannot be replicated.

[kanisatha]

I would strongly recommend you also give Pathfinder: Kingmaker a try. Feel free to set the kingdom management side-game part of it on 'auto' if that's not your thing.

[daven]

I really love the baldurs gate games but I wouldn't ever call them the best games ever made.  Tetris probably holds that title even though I'm not a huge fan of it. 

Unrelated question    you said you're Canadian. How good are montreal smoked meat sandwiches? I'm actually planning a trip to go purely to try them. 

[Brandon Collette]

7 hours ago, kanisatha said:

I would strongly recommend you also give Pathfinder: Kingmaker a try. Feel free to set the kingdom management side-game part of it on 'auto' if that's not your thing.

I have heard a fair amount about that game. Thanks for the recommendation! 

[Brandon Collette]

2 hours ago, daven said:

I really love the baldurs gate games but I wouldn't ever call them the best games ever made.  Tetris probably holds that title even though I'm not a huge fan of it. 

Unrelated question    you said you're Canadian. How good are montreal smoked meat sandwiches? I'm actually planning a trip to go purely to try them. 

Well I live in Calgary which is in Alberta and in fact the reputation around here is the same as you have heard...i.e. they are legendary but I have never had one. I hope you can find a legit one - enjoy!

[xzar_monty]

12 hours ago, daven said:

I really love the baldurs gate games but I wouldn't ever call them the best games ever made.  Tetris probably holds that title even though I'm not a huge fan of it.

The question of "best ever" is essentially meaningless in everything that is not strictly quantifiable like, say, the 100 meters dash. Best book, best movie, best album, best band -- all meaningless. There can be no reasonable basis for assessment.

[kanisatha]

But a person can say it is best for me, and there's nothing wrong with that. And, I think when people say "best" in these kinds of contexts, they almost always do mean "best for me" even if this isn't explicitly stated.

[Boeroer]

OP essentially does state it's just his own take - since he introduced his statement with "Anytime anyone ever asks me..."

That's totally fine with me. It's nice if somebody takes the time to voice a cheerful opinion instead of a rant (which is more common).

He didn't write something like "As we all know..." as some very special dudes in this forum might do (or have done. Didn't see SonicMage for quite some time...).

 

[xzar_monty]

Oh, absolutely, and nothing wrong with the OP. I was simply responding to @daven, and more specifically to his claim concerning Tetris. Tetris is definitely famous, and deservedly so, but all talk about "best ever" is too much.

[Boeroer]

Of course. Because the best game ever made obviously is FTL.

[xzar_monty]

Actually it's NetHack, but since you're talking roguelikes anyway, you can be forgiven.

[daven]

On 12/26/2019 at 5:58 PM, xzar_monty said:

Oh, absolutely, and nothing wrong with the OP. I was simply responding to @daven, and more specifically to his claim concerning Tetris. Tetris is definitely famous, and deservedly so, but all talk about "best ever" is too much.

You make a fair point, I was being a bit pedantic because I was drunk. I regret it now as the opening poster seems like a really nice guy as well.

[bugarup]

On 12/27/2019 at 10:32 PM, daven said:

 I was drunk

Ah. That explains why you was ready to fly to Canada for a sandwich.

[daven]

11 hours ago, bugarup said:

Ah. That explains why you was ready to fly to Canada for a sandwich.

I have been thinking about this sandwich for 12 years now....! People have life dreams of swimming with dolphins, climbing everest.. whatever. I want a Montreal smoked meat sandwich!

Edited December 29, 2019 by daven

[asnjas]

Subjectivity card activated. Surely we can and must consider the game itself and not just each individual's preference or else we are forced to accept absurd claims from boneheads like bieber and brittany are equal to Mozart and queen. 

[Boeroer]

They are equal when it comes to ridiculous outfits though. 

[xzar_monty]

5 hours ago, asnjas said:

Subjectivity card activated. Surely we can and must consider the game itself and not just each individual's preference or else we are forced to accept absurd claims from boneheads like bieber and brittany are equal to Mozart and queen. 

But there are no objective criteria by which to judge the game itself. The purpose of any game is to be enjoyed, and enjoyability is subjective, based on preference. There is no way around this problem. This is precisely the reason why I say the whole question of "best game" is meaningless.

There is no way around the other problem you present, either. Taste both is and isn't subjective. On the one hand, anyone can like what they want, but on the other, if somebody were to claim that Ed Wood is a better director than Stanley Kubrick, I suppose a lot of people would have problems trusting that person's capacity for judgement.

[Boeroer]

7 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

 This is precisely the reason why I say the whole question of "best game" is meaningless.

Except if the answer is "FTL" of course.

[algroth]

On 12/26/2019 at 7:41 AM, xzar_monty said:

The question of "best ever" is essentially meaningless in everything that is not strictly quantifiable like, say, the 100 meters dash. Best book, best movie, best album, best band -- all meaningless. There can be no reasonable basis for assessment.

It depends, really. There are media or scenes that are so uniquely affected by one particular piece in its history that it can be borderline absurd to argue otherwise. Citizen Kane was a watershed film that first crystalized a lot of the components that would shape modern cinema across the next three decades. The Beatles' influence is so ubiquitous across pop music that it's hard to argue their title as the "best pop band", they simply had that deep an impact in the history of pop music since. It can also lead these examples to become holy grails of their respective scene or artform on a wider cultural level which also further cements their position as the generally/culturally understood "best". And while it can all be debated because at the end of the day quality and taste is subjective, and while they're also seen atop a "canon" that isn't a singular rigid entity across the entire world or even a single *country*, to go the complete opposite direction and claim it's meaningless or completely up in the air is a bit disingenuous because it's quite clear that Citizen Kane and Golden Gloves aren't viewed or approached the same way - nor should they be so.

Now, if you prefer Golden Gloves to Citizen Kane, that's also up to you and you're to both do so and defend your position. You can even deem it the "best film" because "the best" doesn't necessarily have to speak of some universal standing or anything. But when a discourse has been created around a certain piece or artist or anything being "the best", that's not meaningless - often understanding *why* it is that they're seen as such can actually be a rather enriching experience when it comes to further understanding a medium, its history and language, and so on.

That said, there's also two tendencies I see that I'm somewhat critical of: firstly, I don't think all mediums have a clear Citizen Kane equivalent "best", at least thus far, and yet we often ask or look to proclaim one as the "best" all the same. I think there's no clear "Citizen Kane" of video games and that's fine, maybe there shouldn't be one yet. Which leads me to my second point which is, why do we assume we should think of "best" only on some wider cultural level instead of our own personal beliefs? Boeroer's right, the best is FTL because that's the best to him. The one I'd defend as the best, and which I'd make a Citizen Kane argument for, would be Planescape: Torment - but at the same time it's clearly not anything like it at this stage. Why assume Tetris to be the best when you don't even like it? Just lose the fear to assuming "best" can't merely be a synonym to "favourite".

Edited January 2, 2020 by algroth

[Boeroer]

Fortunately there's FTL, so we don't need to have a discussion about what's the best video game. Not only for me, my sweet little innocent naif, but for everone - always and forever.

I mean Planescape Torment... pfff. First of all the name is all wrong. If it's about torment its name has to be Painscape Torment obviously. 

Edited January 2, 2020 by Boeroer

[xzar_monty]

1 hour ago, algroth said:

It depends, really. There are media or scenes that are so uniquely affected by one particular piece in its history that it can be borderline absurd to argue otherwise. Citizen Kane was a watershed film that first crystalized a lot of the components that would shape modern cinema across the next three decades. The Beatles' influence is so ubiquitous across pop music that it's hard to argue their title as the "best pop band", they simply had that deep an impact in the history of pop music since.

There is an element of truth to this, but it's nowhere near the absolute truth (as if anything was...). There's no question that Citizen Kane is a masterpiece, and for the reasons you describe, but calling it "the best film" makes little sense. Now, if we were to put together, say, the 50 greatest films (without any order), Citizen Kane would certainly be on the list (and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, for instance, would not). But simply putting Citizen Kane above everything else is not justifiable.

Pretty much the same goes for The Beatles. There is obviously no questioning their influence, but influence or impact is not the same as quality. You have to consider how early The Beatles appeared on the pop scene: when they arrived, the whole pop thing was fairly new, so there was ample room for someone to become a huge influence. This is not possible these days. When I listen to The Beatles, I find that pretty much everything they did before Revolver is meaningless (so yes, that would include Yesterday, which is not a particularly good song -- the only really clever bit is right in the beginning where you're faced with the ambiguity of not knowing whether we're in F major or D minor). Then they improved drastically, and both Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road are excellent albums (although I ever listen to the latter). Much of the musicianship, although certainly not that of Paul McCartney, is second- or third-rate by today's standards (the drumming in particular is frankly poor, much of the time), and much of their work hasn't aged that well. Like, you could easily drop half the songs from the White Album, and that would only improve its overall quality. However, there are some superb songs in their catalogue, and their huge influence is certainly not in question. Again, The Beatles would certainly rank among the 50 greatest pop bands (or even 20), but the best? Nah. The most influental? Almost certainly, yes.

Edited January 2, 2020 by xzar_monty

[algroth]

50 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

There is an element of truth to this, but it's nowhere near the absolute truth (as if anything was...). There's no question that Citizen Kane is a masterpiece, and for the reasons you describe, but calling it "the best film" makes little sense. Now, if we were to put together, say, the 50 greatest films (without any order), Citizen Kane would certainly be on the list (and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, for instance, would not). But simply putting Citizen Kane above everything else is not justifiable.

Except for the matter that it is the common consensus and has been for several decades. It is also through it that Bazin designed a lot of his theories regarding forbidden montage or the auteur theory, it's in it that the base of modern cinema and what most new waves across the 50s and 60s were doing was first crystalized, and so on. In film schools across the globe it is studied as a milstone that marked a radical shift in the aesthetic and philosophical approach to cinema since.  You look at any half-way reputable list of top films and you will find Citizen Kane at the very top of it, or within closing distance of the top film (in BFI's Sight & Sound poll, held most recently in 2012, Vertigo outpaced Citizen Kane to become no. 1, with Kane stepping down to no. 2 for the first time since 1962). In contrast, which films would you reckon compete for the title over Kane in terms of historic significance, or influence, or setting precedent and so on? Vertigo? Breathless? Rome: Open City? I think the first could be the most arguable but even then...

Quote

Pretty much the same goes for The Beatles. There is obviously no questioning their influence, but influence or impact is not the same as quality. You have to consider how early The Beatles appeared on the pop scene: when they arrived, the whole pop thing was fairly new, so there was ample room for someone to become a huge influence. This is not possible these days. When I listen to The Beatles, I find that pretty much everything they did before Revolver is meaningless (so yes, that would include Yesterday, which is not a particularly good song -- the only really clever bit is right in the beginning where you're faced with the ambiguity of not knowing whether we're in F major or D minor). Then they improved drastically, and both Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road are excellent albums (although I ever listen to the latter). Much of the musicianship, although certainly not that of Paul McCartney, is second- or third-rate by today's standards (the drumming in particular is frankly poor, much of the time), and much of their work hasn't aged that well. Like, you could easily drop half the songs from the White Album, and that would only improve its overall quality. However, there are some superb songs in their catalogue, and their huge influence is certainly not in question. Again, The Beatles would certainly rank among the 50 greatest pop bands (or even 20), but the best? Nah. The most influental? Almost certainly, yes.

Whilst I agree that influence and quality isn't the same, I don't think this is a matter that can be brought up to the Beatles at all. At the time they revolutionized the pop scene they weren't even at the height of their artistic powers. You can take any of their albums from the latter half of their career and make a case for it as being the best pop album ever made - innumerable articles have been written in that fashion for Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts' Club Band, Abbey Road, the white album, and so on. By the time they released such records pop and rock were arguably at the peak state of the century - along the Beatles you had a plethora of other bands and artists revolutionizing the scene in their own way, with the likes of the Stones, the Who, the Kinks, Zappa, the Velvet Underground, the Beach Boys, the Byrds, Dylan, Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix, you name it. Earlier than the Beatles you likewise had a bunch of artists and stars making waves, Elvis for starters. And yet even in those days the Beatles dwarfed all of them. Doc Pomus, one of the most reknown songwriters of the era, felt like he'd been made irrelevant in an age where Lennon/McCartney existed (not least because they were also a major force in unifying the songwriter-performer role which up to that point had largely been separate in the pop sphere). Like, I'm saying this as someone who isn't that big a fan of the Beatles and much prefers plenty of these other acts, the rest made waves, they made tsunamis. To this day they remain pretty undisputedly kings, even as we're tending away from rock as a hegemonic mainstream genre.

I would on the other hand argue that there is probably no single clear response for a "best album of all time" in the collective consciousness the way there is a film or band. I've heard plenty of arguments for the above-mentioned Beatles records for example, but fans are also pretty split over which of them all is actually the best - meanwhile other common contenders include Pet Sounds, The Velvet Underground & Nico, The Dark Side of the Moon, etc. And if there is none, maybe it's best to not try and find one either. I'll just say it's Robert Wyatt's Rock Bottom instead.

Edited January 2, 2020 by algroth

[xzar_monty]

Hey, what I'm arguing is that whole idea of making lists of top films or top bands is meaningless, and the fact of the innumerable articles out there does not mean much. Of course they're being written and lists are being made, because there are plenty of people who enjoy that kind of thing, but from that it does not follow that it's a sensible business -- simply look at the question a bit more deeply and you will recognize that there can be no reasonable standards for making judgements on what is the best ever. However, making lists and writing articles like that is a fairly nice and easy way of selling magazines: that's what the lists and articles are for (I have a history in journalism, I know rather a lot about how it works). And once a consensus is established, in just about anything, it has an astonishing way of perpetuating itself.

[algroth]

24 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

Hey, what I'm arguing is that whole idea of making lists of top films or top bands is meaningless, and the fact of the innumerable articles out there does not mean much. Of course they're being written and lists are being made, because there are plenty of people who enjoy that kind of thing, but from that it does not follow that it's a sensible business -- simply look at the question a bit more deeply and you will recognize that there can be no reasonable standards for making judgements on what is the best ever. However, making lists and writing articles like that is a fairly nice and easy way of selling magazines: that's what the lists and articles are for (I have a history in journalism, I know rather a lot about how it works). And once a consensus is established, in just about anything, it has an astonishing way of perpetuating itself.

That's the thing though - I think there absolutely are. If you take on the notion that setting a hierarchy of artists or works is meaningless, then taken to an absurd it means your local indie band has as much relevance as the Beatles or Dylan or something, and that is simply untrue. The standing the Beatles have isn't the result of some arbitrary decision by a sector of the press, it's also the result of artistic and cultural trends, of their significance to a particular culture or era and so on - and these things aren't irrelevant. Likewise, whilst all opinion and taste is subjective, we opine over things that have objective elements governing their form and which respond to a cultural frame of reference as well. Whilst the value we give to each is ultimately personal, that "personal value" is often informed by both awareness of the form or language as well as the cultural framework that governs our notions of taste and perception. It's why for example you'll see general associations of minor chords with "sadness" and major chords with "happiness", why dark ambient tends to be creepy, why music in an augmented scale seems angular or dissonant, and so on. I've never seen someone play Lustmord when looking to liven up a party for example. In a case where you have films like Citizen Kane or bands like the Beatles with the sheer reputation they have, a lot of that can also result in a combination of these elements - the compositional or technical meeting and challenging the cultural framework, or setting a unique precedent within it. In either case, recognizing their position in a scene and then proceeding to break down the reason for their place in that scene can be very edifying when it comes to further understanding or appreciating a particular medium.

Also I do hold that the consensus is much like the norm in the evolution of language - it comes after a proposition is accepted, generalized and normalized. The press will try to establish its own canon or propose what albums they deem important, but ultimately the stuff that endures is the stuff that sticks and others accept. Plenty of acts every year are declared the next big thing before fading away a few years later - that we're now seeing people like Kanye West or Kendrick Lamar being discussed as the musical influencers of the 10s isn't just the product of consensus amidst magazines but also one which is supported by listeners and emerging artist who follow in their footsteps and 'legitimize' their standing in the process. For a music historian to look back at this decade and ignore Kanye in favour of maybe better and more politically conscious artists like, say, JPEGMAFIA or Moor Mother or something, would make their work pretty disingenuous and unlikely to catch on as a real consensus or view of the time.

Edited January 2, 2020 by algroth

[xzar_monty]

11 minutes ago, algroth said:

That's the thing though - I think there absolutely are. If you take on the notion that setting a hierarchy of artists or works is meaningless, then taken to an absurd it means your local indie band has as much relevance as the Beatles or Dylan or something, and that is simply untrue.

Your terminology is not consistent and therefore your argument is rendered hopelessly illogical. You cannot just switch concepts around. "Relevance" is not "quality". You have to be precise, otherwise we're not going to have a meaningful argument.

But hey, this is off topic, let's stop here -- I won't be commenting on this subject anymore.

Edited January 2, 2020 by xzar_monty