The good, bad, and the ugly in Infinity Engine games

[Karkarov]

I enjoyed Icewind Dale's story, but that probably mostly was due to the atmosphere. Kuldahar, the Oak, the cult of Auril... it's one of those games that make you feel cozy in your chair.

 

BG's story on the other hand... it all starts with the first hook of the story. You're supposed to hunt down Gorion's killer. Thing is, I didn't even care at all. The prologue definitely wasn't enough to ingrain that "child at Candlekeep" feeling into me, and why I should go look for a powerful assassin who killed an old man I had travelled with for some seconds when there was a whole open world waiting, I never quite got that into my system.

Actually IWD is the one Infinity Engine game I am totally blase on.  The mechanics were good but I found the narrative uninteresting and mostly been there done that, and the setting felt very generic.  I had played plenty of RPG's with similar settings, locations, and enemies.  It was a mechanically functional game but there was nothing memorable about it.

 

The one thing I agree with that most people in this thread have touched on is that the Infinity Engine games are all leveled at three different goals.

 

IWD = Mechanics/Gamist I win thing

PST = Pure narrative

BG = Tried to do all three.  BG 1 sort of failing at it, BG2 sort of succeeding.

 

So it is no surprise to me the only Infinity Engine game I consider to be a great game is BG2. 

[PrimeJunta]

Other than I've said nothing like that? No.

Never said you did.

 

This was fun for the first few rounds, but if you have a problem with me, please send me a PM so we can sort it out there; I don't see any reason to burden this thread further with demonstrations of our respective wit.

[Iucounu]

No need to be sensitive. I gave you a critique, you started being witty about it and I responded by being witty myself, and I guess, poking fun a bit on your worldview/belief myself. But if that's it, I see no reason to continue this. 

[PrimeJunta]

Sure, whatevs. Poke away, I don't mind -- I was asking for it really.

 

Again, I just don't see the point of cluttering up the public thread with it. It's a leetle off-topic, don't ya think?

[Sacred_Path]

IWD = Mechanics/Gamist I win thing

PST = Pure narrative

BG = Tried to do all three.  BG 1 sort of failing at it, BG2 sort of succeeding.

 

So it is no surprise to me the only Infinity Engine game I consider to be a great game is BG2.

I would agree that BG2 managed to do something well at every level; and that therefore it's worth a recommendation to every RPG player.

 

And this is actually what I feel a game that is supposed to be a "masterpiece" must deliver. In the case of BG2, I think none of its parts were so fantastic that many people would call it that; but it's a close contender for the title.

Edited March 11, 2013 by Sacred_Path

[Iucounu]

Sure, whatevs. Poke away, I don't mind -- I was asking for it really.

 

Again, I just don't see the point of cluttering up the public thread with it. It's a leetle off-topic, don't ya think?

If you don't see the point, I suggest you simply stop

[Jerky33]

I don't understand why it needs so much discussion that, to one person, something is a masterpiece, and to another, it isn't.  Just like I don't get why Jackson Pollock is such a great artist, but people think his pieces are masterpieces.

 

There is no "criteria" for something being a masterpiece.  Either people feel that it is, or people feel that it isn't.  The way that a game, or any type of media, makes you FEEL is what makes it a masterpiece, not a set of guidelines that you check off.

 

EDIT:  Just for fun, I googled "how to determine if something is a masterpiece" and I found the following discussion (it's about movies, but still pretty interesting):

 

http://mubi.com/topics/how-do-you-know-that-something-is-a-masterpiece

 

Maybe you guys should try to agree to what a masterpiece means first before getting into a 10-page discussion where you are basically talking past each other (although, I have to admit, it was a pretty fun read).

Edited March 12, 2013 by Jerky33

[Sacred_Path]

I don't understand why it needs so much discussion that, to one person, something is a masterpiece, and to another, it isn't.  Just like I don't get why Jackson Pollock is such a great artist, but people think his pieces are masterpieces.

Are you implying that people simply look at things from different angles, harbour deep-seated grudges for no good reason, hype things on ground of weird subjective preferences, and like to randomly bash other people's preferences because they have nothing better to do?

 

Surely not on the internet.

 

EDIT:  Just for fun, I googled "how to determine if something is a masterpiece" and I found the following discussion (it's about movies, but still pretty interesting):

 

http://mubi.com/topics/how-do-you-know-that-something-is-a-masterpiece

One interesting thing in that thread: "a masterpiece is something endlessly repeatable and endlessly enjoyable."

 

That's hyperbole, but I'd say that what I said about succeeding on different levels, is what makes "masterpieces" potentially more endearing in the long run than others. BG2 has good replay value because it does a lot of things right, and you can find something new to enjoy for a long time. It would be interesting to hear how many times PrimeJunta has played through PS:T (and did you do it with a low WIS, low INT, low CHA fighter?).

Edited March 12, 2013 by Sacred_Path

[Ffordesoon]

It's worth noting that how many times you've played a game isn't a reliable measure of how much you enjoy it, and certainly isn't a reliable measure of quality.

 

For example, I rarely play games twice, even when I love them. There are too many others I haven't played yet.

 

One game I did play twice was Alpha Protocol. I'd play it a third time, too. It's one of my favorite games, but is it a masterpiece? Not by any stretch of the imagination. In a lot of ways, it's completely broken. But I've gladly sunk a ton of time into it, and would gladly sink more into it. For my purposes, it's "endlessly repeatable and endlessly enjoyable." So am I wrong, then? Is it a masterpiece? Or is it just a game I like a lot? Is there a difference?

 

Personally, I would ascribe the descriptor "masterpiece" to anything I think is a masterpiece. I don't care what other people think of it.

[Sacred_Path]

It's worth noting that how many times you've played a game isn't a reliable measure of how much you enjoy it, and certainly isn't a reliable measure of quality.

 

For example, I rarely play games twice, even when I love them. There are too many others I haven't played yet.

I know what you're getting at. Like in your AP example, I've restarted Lionheart several times with different characters. Character creation is fun, so I enjoy that, even though the game is also pretty much broken. OTOH, I only played through it once, because the game as a whole simply isn't fun enough to make me stick with it.

Personally, I would ascribe the descriptor "masterpiece" to anything I think is a masterpiece. I don't care what other people think of it.

This is unacceptable.

[Karkarov]

 

It's worth noting that how many times you've played a game isn't a reliable measure of how much you enjoy it, and certainly isn't a reliable measure of quality.

 

For example, I rarely play games twice, even when I love them. There are too many others I haven't played yet.

I know what you're getting at. Like in your AP example, I've restarted Lionheart several times with different characters. Character creation is fun, so I enjoy that, even though the game is also pretty much broken. OTOH, I only played through it once, because the game as a whole simply isn't fun enough to make me stick with it.

Personally I can't think of any game I would call a "masterpiece" to be honest.  That word is thrown around wayyyyy too lightly in this thread.

 

Though I can think of a number of games I consider to be great.  Which is why I have to scratch my head Ffordesoon because you can bet any game that I "love" I have in fact played it more than once.  Some games I have actually beaten 3-4 times I enjoyed them so much.

[Ffordesoon]

@Sacred_Path:

 

I'm sorry you consider my definition "unacceptable." I don't, you know, care what you think of my opinions, given that they're mine and not yours, but I'm sorry they're frustrating to you.

 

If it helps, my definition of a masterpiece is "a work of art that accomplishes its goal spectacularly well." Torment accomplishes what I see as its goal spectacularly well. That doesn't mean everyone has to like it. It's just what I think.

 

Unless you were being sarcastic. I couldn't tell, I'm afraid.

 

@Karkarov:

 

The fact that you put scare quotes around "love" is bizarre. Is it somehow indecorous to admit that there are games I love? I'm not talking carnal or romantic love, you know. The only thing I'm saying is that there are games I really really like a lot. Is that particularly odd?

 

I have to say, I've seen some weird responses to posts I thought were totally uncontroversial in the past, but I've never seen anyone implicitly question the very concept of "loving" a game. You're blowing my mind, a little.

 

As to your point about my gaming habits, I don't really understand it. I play games once, try my damndest to see all the content I can see, and move on. Sometimes, I play them more than once, especially if they're short, but as a rule, I play them once. Is that bothersome to you? If so, why?

 

I don't read novels more than once, either. I'll read passages again, but that's it. I watch movies a bunch of times, because they don't require a huge time investment, and I read comics multiple times for the same reason. Anything that requires a massive investment of time, I tend to commit to once, take what I can from it, and move on.

 

I hesitate to say this, as it sounds like one of those "my Dad's uncle's sister's dermatologist works at Nintendo, and he says they're making Mario 1000000 for the SuperDolphin right now" playground boasts that kids throw around to get attention, but I suppose part of it is having grown up affluent. When you have essentially unlimited disposable income to spend on new things, you rarely linger on the old ones. Sometimes I wish I could do that, but it's simply not something I feel comfortable doing.

 

If you like doing it, though, that's fantastic. Go nuts. I couldn't stop you even if I wanted to.

[Sacred_Path]

Unless you were being sarcastic. I couldn't tell, I'm afraid.

Then I shall not disclose it to you.

I hesitate to say this, as it sounds like one of those "my Dad's uncle's sister's dermatologist works at Nintendo, and he says they're making Mario 1000000 for the SuperDolphin right now" playground boasts that kids throw around to get attention, but I suppose part of it is having grown up affluent. When you have essentially unlimited disposable income to spend on new things, you rarely linger on the old ones. Sometimes I wish I could do that, but it's simply not something I feel comfortable doing.

In that case you should be forced to kickstart a ****load of games. Because despite having enough money to buy more games, I simply don't find much in the way of great games in this my very most beloved genre.

[Ffordesoon]

What do you think I've been doing?

 

Backed PE for a thousand, backing Tides of Numenera for $350, backed Wasteland 2 for $280, backed Shadowrun Returns for I-don't-know-how-much, backed Sui Generis, backed Shroud Of The Avatar for $30, backed Guido Henkel's dear departed Thorvalla, backed Old-School RPG neé Shaker, backed Legend Of Eisenwald, backed Expeditions: Conquistador, backed a TON of roguelikes...

 

My KS account says I've backed almost a hundred projects, most for at least fifty bucks. Anyone who says I don't put my money where my mouth is is flat-out wrong.

[Sacred_Path]

I like your skepticism about Garriott's game, lolz.

[Ffordesoon]

I like your skepticism about Garriott's game, lolz.

I backed it because I want it to be good, but you're right, I'm not exactly convinced.

[PrimeJunta]

Some games I have actually beaten 3-4 times I enjoyed them so much.

Only? You, son, do not know the meaning of loving a game.

[Malekith]

Haha, yeah 4 times is too few. I have replayed my favorite games much,much more.

 

But to be fair i like isometric, 2D, text heavy games with tactical non action combat. So i don't have many alternatives with modern games. Most modern games that i liked, even realy liked , i haven't bothered to replay them as i didn't enjoy the gameplay much. Alpha Protocol, Fallout New Vegas etc. are very good games, but i don't want to replay them. But i can fire Planescape, Icewind Dale or Fallouts any time  and replay them.They just don't get old.
 

So i can understand someone who has many alternatives not wanting to replay the same games over and over. 2013-2014 be the first years i wont replay any of the old games. Shadowrun Returns, Wasteland 2, Age of Decadence, Chaos Chronicles, Dead State, Divinity:Original Sin and Dragon Comander, Project Eternity, Torment:Tides of Numenera.

For the first time in years i have games that i realy want to play instead of games that i play simply because i have money to burn and time to waste.

Edited March 12, 2013 by Malekith

[FlintlockJazz]

I came to a shocking realisation when playing the Baldur's Gate games with mods.  With the BGTutu and NPC banter mods, I not only enjoyed BG1 degrees more than I used to, but I actually liked it more than 2.  With playing BG2 with fresh eyes, I realised something: I did not actually enjoy the main plotline.  On the contrary, I actually 'put up with' the main plot line in order to get at the more interesting and (in my humble opinion) better written sidequests.  I actually stopped playing at the Asylum dungeons on my last playthrough because it got me so bored, and I never did enjoy the linear railroad that is Throne of Bhaal. 

 

I'm not someone who normally prefers exploration and random sidequests, the TES games are not something I would prefer for instance despite being all about exploration and sidequests, and so back before the mods when I used to prefer BG2 to BG1 I thought it must be because of the focus of the main story and whatnot, but really it was both: the sensation of exploring a well-written world. 

 

With the NPC banter pack to make the NPCs feel alive BG1 conveys the sense that you are leading a band of adventurers bimbling across the countryside looking for danger and excitement better than BG2.  BG2 still wins out on many of its more interesting sidequests, but when you actually think about the main storyline itself, aside from some (overrated in my opinion, please don't shoot me) acting by Irenicus there isn't really that much to it...

Edited March 12, 2013 by FlintlockJazz

[Karkarov]

@Karkarov:

 

The fact that you put scare quotes around "love" is bizarre. Is it somehow indecorous to admit that there are games I love? I'm not talking carnal or romantic love, you know. The only thing I'm saying is that there are games I really really like a lot. Is that particularly odd?

 

I have to say, I've seen some weird responses to posts I thought were totally uncontroversial in the past, but I've never seen anyone implicitly question the very concept of "loving" a game. You're blowing my mind, a little.

 

As to your point about my gaming habits, I don't really understand it. I play games once, try my damndest to see all the content I can see, and move on. Sometimes, I play them more than once, especially if they're short, but as a rule, I play them once. Is that bothersome to you? If so, why?

Or maybe I am just saying when I "love" a game I play it more than once and find it sort of stupid that you claim you really enjoy a game but don't seem to think it is worth more than one play through.  If you really enjoyed it shouldn't it be fun the second time too?

 

I guess that concept was too high brow for you.

 

 

What do you think I've been doing?

 

Backed PE for a thousand, backing Tides of Numenera for $350, backed Wasteland 2 for $280, backed Shadowrun Returns for I-don't-know-how-much, backed Sui Generis, backed Shroud Of The Avatar for $30, backed Guido Henkel's dear departed Thorvalla, backed Old-School RPG neé Shaker, backed Legend Of Eisenwald, backed Expeditions: Conquistador, backed a TON of roguelikes...

 

My KS account says I've backed almost a hundred projects, most for at least fifty bucks. Anyone who says I don't put my money where my mouth is is flat-out wrong.

And I am the one who is making a childish playground brag?

[Ffordesoon]

@Karkarov:

 

No, that's not highbrow. In point of fact, that argument is the worst kind of e-peen-measuring garbage. The reason I didn't assume you were making that argument is because I didn't want to assume the absolute worst about you.

 

"You don't really like things unless you play them the way I play them! You're just a poseur! I'm the one who's really actually cool, because I play video games multiple times like a real man! I'm hardcore, because I don't believe people love their video games unless they meet my arbitrary standards!"

 

What are you, twelve? You can't just believe me when I say I love a certain game, the way everybody else does? Why would I lie about that? What could it possibly prove?

 

As I said, if you like playing games multple times, good for you! I have plenty of friends who like the same thing. I don't get as much out of it as they do, so - shock horror - I don't usually do it.

 

Where's the problem, again? How does this affect you in any way? What's so bothersome about someone you don't know and will never meet in person consuming an entertainment product as he sees fit? Why do you feel this bizarre need to question my credentials because I didn't pass an arbitrary test of yours I was never trying to pass?

 

I've completed Final Fight around eleven times. I love that game, but there are games I can promise you I love more that I haven't completed more than once, because they represent a massive investment of time on my part. That's the only dividing line.

 

Investing another huge chunk of time into a long game I loved wouldn't prove anything I didn't already know. I loved Persona 4 Golden, played it for 140 hours, and got the best ending. What would playing it again prove? That it's a great game? I already know that. Yes, it would still be great a second time. But it wouldn't be new to me, and there are great games that are still new to me. Why wouldn't I play those instead? Why try to step in the same river twice, as it were?

 

Not to mention that I rarely replay RPGs anyway, because I tend to make the choices I make and live with them. So yeah.

 

Finally, regarding your weird little comment reprimanding me for boasting: I never said I wouldn't boast about things I'm proud to have done. The whole point of the "playground boast" comment I made was to point out that I was aware how ridiculous "OH AND BY THE WAY I'M RICH" sounded. I don't really know how you got "Karkarov is a braggart" out of that, given that I didn't even mention you in the relevant post.

[Chippy]

Tried to list the stuff that stood out for me.  Apart from stuff that should have been mentioned.

 

BG1:

Good: Creating an alter ego in the FR that starts out without being pressured to save the world. 

Bad: Should have been more reactivity to actual events, eg Iron weapons breaking more.

Ugly: Due to implementation of rules, low level classes felt the same (Ranger, Paladin, Fighter) and their abilities were eclipsed by other classes e.g. Ranger > Fighter/Thief, and sometimes spells e.g. Thief traps, Mage spell trap.

 

Icewind Dale:

Good:  Party tactics, enemies that had specific weaknesses (more than BG) like skeletons vs blunt. 

Bad:  Maybe if fleshed out surroundings a bit more?  Like tracking showing sites and details of past battles that could tell a story as well as finding an old journal from a cleric...

Ugly: TRIALS of the Luremaster.  Some of those puzzles...

 

Planescape Torment:

Good:  E.VE.R.Y.T.H.I.N.G.  Anna's ass (and personality), Fall from Grace's background and life decisions (the pathy/cognitive, dignified succubus - if she can be profiled that easily).  Just all party members, I could go on.

Bad:  At the time my prior experience and learning of BG made me expect an inventory as varied as BG (armor, weapons, etc) which initially made PS:T feel a bit stripped down.  Obviously the game changed my oppinion.

Ugly:  Don't know why combat is a complaint, but mine would be that the Nameless One didn't really get to flex his abilities (especially towards the end) maybe a design decision because of limited PC's, but (especially in hell) expected to fight armies when indicated and (at the very end) thought there would be more.  Just nitpicking really.

 

IWD2:

Good:  Character skills effected story.

Bad:  Some of those puzzles...

Ugly:  The title was exactly as advertised, so a very specific narrow complaint, but; I could never get stealth to work.  Never did find out what was up there.  Kinda annoying because I'm supposed to be pretty familiar with the engine.  Having always read the manual, assumed a bug?.

[Karkarov]

@Karkarov:

 

Finally, regarding your weird little comment reprimanding me for boasting: I never said I wouldn't boast about things I'm proud to have done. The whole point of the "playground boast" comment I made was to point out that I was aware how ridiculous "OH AND BY THE WAY I'M RICH" sounded. I don't really know how you got "Karkarov is a braggart" out of that, given that I didn't even mention you in the relevant post.

Dude shut up, you are the worst kind of internet trash there is, a know it all who gets butt hurt by anyone disagreeing with him on anything.  I am sorry I threatened your fragile internet ego but most people who enjoy a video game will play it more than once.  Me stating that I do so is not a "brag", it is not an "e-peen measurement", it is plain old bare bones statement of fact that if I enjoy a game I will play it more than one time.  I am willing to bet most people on this forum also play games they like more than once, heck other people in this thread have even stated as such.  Are they vile internet braggarts too because they admitted to playing Planescape Torment more than one time?

 

But then again most of us aren't richer than god with so much disposable income it makes us feel bad to play a old game.  I don't know how you make it through the day with these terrible first world problems you have to deal with.

[Failion]

The limited interaction with the game world besides killing crap and talking to npcs. Gameplay felt entirely to focused on killing and attacking crap, little else to do. Pathfinding, your party members colliding into each other. Collision is a great mechanic but the pathfinding was terrible and party movement need to be more fluid.                                    

[Ninjerk]

What do you think I've been doing?

 

Backed PE for a thousand, backing Tides of Numenera for $350, backed Wasteland 2 for $280, backed Shadowrun Returns for I-don't-know-how-much, backed Sui Generis, backed Shroud Of The Avatar for $30, backed Guido Henkel's dear departed Thorvalla, backed Old-School RPG neé Shaker, backed Legend Of Eisenwald, backed Expeditions: Conquistador, backed a TON of roguelikes...

 

My KS account says I've backed almost a hundred projects, most for at least fifty bucks. Anyone who says I don't put my money where my mouth is is flat-out wrong.

 

Well you're just a regular Medici, aren't you?  We should get you a Patron of the Arts forum title!