Can I even handle a game like PE any longer? Well, I sure hope so!

[Ink Blot]

Ink Blot: Go head and use it or do a spin-off, be my guest! I have a wife and two kids as well - a boy and a girl. Unfortunately, my wife doesn't share my passion for RPGs or gaming in general. I have tried, believe me, arranged PnP sessions with some friends, but she just can't stop laughing. She prefer card games (and is a shark in those waters) and Candy Crush.

Heh, my wife's similar to yours. She tolerates my gaming obsession with (I think) a sense of amused incomprehension, but she has no desire whatsoever to play any kind of computer game (with the exception of the odd time waster on her phone).

[Wizaerd]

However, I found that after years of HUD-oriented quests I'd become an imbecile. I'd be told someone would be waiting for me somewhere, and ten minutes later I'd need to look up a cheat guide to find out where I was supposed to go. Now sure, you could argue that's what a quest tracker is for, but this isn't rocket science.

 

 

This is how I feel as well.  I've never been all that good at remembering these types of things, especially if they playtime has been spread out.  Hopefully PoE will have appropriate mechanics implemented to eliminate these types of issues.  

[Ink Blot]

 

This is how I feel as well.  I've never been all that good at remembering these types of things, especially if they playtime has been spread out.  Hopefully PoE will have appropriate mechanics implemented to eliminate these types of issues.  

 

This is easily solved with a good in-game journal that updates regularly. And it's a nice, unobtrusive solution as well. For those that don't need the feature, they need not even touch the journal. For the older forgetful types like myself, it's easy to look up the quest and find out who you need to find and where they're located.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Precisely! No holding hands, just a nice journal to read if one feels a bit lost or forgetful.

 

Nota bene: When I question whether I can handle PE, it's not my groping for some kind of handholding. I hate those pesky exclamation marks like everyone else, but rather I'm just acknowledging the great investment I used to make in games that I still love, and whether I can muster that same bravado again, as I am a bit more mature with bad night vision and in need of reading glasses.   

[Ieo]

stuff

 

 

TOO MUCH TEXT. I HOPE PE DOESN'T HAVE THAT MUCH TEXT. MORE ANIMATIONS PLOX!

 

 

I enjoy the gamut between PS:T and MMOs, so I'm not worried, and my playstyle actually isn't ideal for MMOs anyway since I prefer experimentation and not min-maxing the stupid numbers. I'd love to replay PS:T to see if I missed anything, but it keeps crashing on my system.

 

WTB PS:T:EE? 

 

As for the Having Time issue... well... eh, it'll work out. Instead of going to see that 3-hour self-aggrandizing Insert Tolkien or Star Wars Franchise Pre-Sequel, I'll just play a game.

[Naurgalen]

While the OP and I share the lack of time, I'm just the opposite of him at the expectations: I'm starving for a "real" RPG like PoE. I realized this it when I bought Shadowrun Returns and I finished the game in 1 day even while the game lacks real roleplaying quality's and its super ultra linear. (But the setting has so much potential and some user created maps are far superior!!).

 

Old school rpgs are sadly too rare (the last one I can barely call that is Dragon Age: Origins) and when you really love the genre and its quality's: strategic fights, personalization, deep story's and characters, role playing, etc... ... its hard to not make time for it, even if it is just 2 hours before going to bed.

 

Finally, I don't think one can just replace cRPGS with aRPGS cause while similar, they give different experiences to the players, like books vs movies. Its just a matter of what one wishes to "feel".

[IndiraLightfoot]

Ieo: Sorry for the wall of text. I just got all emotional. And PST EE is perhaps not a bad idea. I replayed like a year ago, and then crashes were aplenty.

 

Naurgalen: I think comparing CRPGs with books and ARPGs to movies is you being too kind on the latter. I think those old school RPGs are like classic cars and ARPGs are like drumming with your fingers on a dashboard on one such car.

[Walsingham]

PE is the first new game I'll have bought in a LONG time where I'll buy a reporter's pad a  pencil just for playing it.

[Yonjuro]

 Lots of good thoughts in this thread. I think some of the concerns boil down to, when is something fun and challenging vs. hard and frustrating. Maybe we can come up with useful thoughts about that.

 

Oh as an additional thought in case Obsidian is listening .  That illithid level from BG2?  How about we don't do something similar in Eternity?  Just saying, that's the the kinda BS encounter design that is just frustrating and stupid and makes people quit a game instead of work through it.

 

 

  So, yeah, the illithid level. Several things can make it more frustrating than fun. If you go there with a high enough level party, (mage or cleric 15 or higher) then hasted skeletons make it pretty manageable. If your party is lower level, well, you don't have enough chaotic commands spells.

 

 You may have done the beholder area first and found a greenstone amulet that defends against psionics, but not completely (what the $%^&* does that mean, does it work or not?). And, maybe you didn't do the beholder level first and don't have a greenstone amulet at all.

 

 Eventually you find 'brine potions' that make your characters immune to psionics (but you don't know how long they last).

 

 Oh, and you can't leave until you beat the level (unless you want to reload). 

 

 So, when is a level challenging and when is it frustrating? Some things that come to mind:

 

1. Game ending attacks that have no defense at all - yuck.

 

2. Defense exists, but in a reasonable play through you don't happen have it with you and you can't leave and come back with a scroll/potion/higher level cleric/whatever because you're stuck in the level - yuck.

 

3. Too much grinding and a long walk to recover if your party is too wounded to risk resting in a dangerous place (or, if you can't rest at all without a long walk).

 

4. Too much backtracking to solve a puzzle. Hint, something is wrong if someone would be tempted to use a teleport cheat to beat a level. (Yeah, I'm looking at you 'Trials of the Luremaster' gem puzzle). Shortest path optimization is for computers, not computer gamers and isn't fun. At all. Ever. Really. Not ever.

 

 A dungeon that I liked in BG2 was Windspear Hills. You might have a problem with the undead critters, especially with a lower level party but there is a convenient ambush point to use on them (that is initially used on you). Firkraag is a challenge, but is optional and a lot of the loot you can find in the dungeon makes him a lot more manageable. Getting out to rest in safe place was a pain, but was usually not necessary. Level drain was a pain there and everywhere else.

 

 The cloakwood spider level in BG1 was challenging for a new player but well done. The guy at the beginning of the level tells you that his brother was taken by spiders. The astute player may have chosen to leave and come back with antidote potions if not already equipped. The game did not prevent the astute player from doing so. Good, challenging, fun  (in a creepy disturbing sort of way) level for a low level party.

 

What else? Other ideas?

[JFSOCC]

Interesting topic and Ive been wondering if cRPG's are for me anymore. I play the hell out of aRPG's (I probably have close to 1000 hours invested across all my characters in D3) but when I read about PE I get really discouraged as, IMO, it sounds like total drek. I haven't liked a single mechanic so far and to me it seems like they threw out fun for the sake of "tactics". I am in no way interested in mechanics that are the same but with a twist to just to kick you in the junk. Meh, TBH, I don't think Ive liked a D&D system since 2.5E but Ive never tried Pathfinder or the like so maybe I would enjoy those systems. Ive got my fingers (and toes) crossed that Divinity turns out to be the game I was hoping PE would be.

I really hope you'll be positively surprised.

You will give it a try though, no?

 

Edit: Unlike many in this thread, I have seas of free time and would find it a shame if no challenge in the game lasted longer than thirty minutes.

Edited January 9, 2014 by JFSOCC

[Reever]

My biggest problem with PoE style games is that I tend to flip into "meta" mode too easily. This leads to all kinds of stuff that kind of ruins things for me, like restarting over and over again, exploring branches by going to a previous save and trying another approach, looking for strategy guides which leads to looking for spoilers, and so on and so forth. I find it difficult to just throw myself into a game and enjoy it, whatever happens.

 

An age-related thing is that my tolerance for frustration has gone down. I no longer have the patience to, say, keep reloading until I figure a battle out (BG2, here's looking at you), or keep exploring until I find that annoyingly-hidden last piece of a puzzle, and so on. Nowadays getting stuck mostly just gets me to quit, or look for spoilers, both of which ruin it for me. Conversely, if a game gets too easy, I get bored and quit as well. I'll only soldier on through these kinds of things if the game brings something to the table that really pushes my buttons on a deep level. Well-executed something that I've already done before doesn't quite cut the mustard.'

 

As to PoE, I remain extremely optimistic. I like 90% of the design ideas that have been presented; I agree with almost all of the ways it's different from the IE games (mechanics, guns, metaphysics), and I've tremendously enjoyed the writing and world-building the game's makers have done before. I also get the vibe that this is something they really want to do.

 

Perhaps, in a way, PoE is a test. If I won't enjoy it, I don't think I'll enjoy any game anymore. Tastes change. I've been playing computer games ever since my dad took me to the Stanford University computer center and introduced me to rogue. That'll be 32 years ago this year. It's a pretty good run for a hobby.

 

I can somewhat relate to this, though my case is quite different. Firstly, I'm a bit younger ( ), but I also tend to flip into this meta mode. Or at least it happened with my first playthrough of Planescape: Torment, which I finished at the end of last year. But I think that was actually more because I wanted to see and experience everything (because of my humongous backlog, which consist of a big amount of old and new RPGs), so I risked some looks at various walkthroughs.

Believe it or not, it did not seem to dimish my enjoyment of the game that much, though.

 

Secondly, the first "RPG" I ever played (for real) was Mass Effect. Yeah, I know, it's an ARPG, or whatever you'd like to call it, but at the time I didn't make such distinctions. I just really enjoyed the universe, the characters and the story. It impressed me. And I knew of the story before I played the game and I still loved the heck out of it (and went on to invest quite a few hours in the games).

So bearing this in mind, I was afraid I couldn't get into the classics, especially the D&Ds. But I really did enjoy P:T. Hopefully I'll also be able to enjoy Baldur's Gate and the NWN series. I also bought all the Ultimas, but I don't think I'll ever play through the first three

 

DA:O is probably the first game I played that can qualify as a CRPG and I also enjoyed it.

Now, hardcore gamers might hate me for this, but honestly I think "the dumbing down" of various elements is sometimes in favor of the enjoyment of the game. I can live without quest markers (as I did in P:T, where I usually found my target without a walkthrough), but as far as combat systems, resting and other such mechanics are concerned, I prefer the "ARPG/modern CRPG approach", if you know what I mean.

 

Ultimately, the way you view games really depends on which games you grew up with/which "era" you lived in and what your current situation is. As a student I can't (or shouldn't ) waste my time on hard-core battles or despair because of various mechanics and I'm playing RPGs for the story, anyway (of course, everybody has their own motivations).

 

Think I'll enjoy this game a lot, though =)

Edited January 9, 2014 by Reever

[Bryy]

 

Let me elaborate. I am a true gamer.

 

 

Got to it before me.

[PrimeJunta]

@Reever, there's dumbing down, and then there's getting rid of unnecessary complexity and lazy design masquerading as challenge. Sometimes it's hard to tell which is which, and the classics had a lot of both, and downright bad design to boot.

 

As to the games you listed, I didn't care much for ME nor DA:O, but IMO their weaknesses were primarily with the aspects you liked, not so much that ME was actiony and DA:O was MMORPG-y. I didn't like the writing in either, and ME's universe was empty and repetitive; it also had the worst loot system in any game I've played, with mountains of endlessly repetitive, generic shinies.

 

I've more or less given up on BioWare actually. They were on an upward slope until BG2, and a downward slope since then with occasional dead-cat bounces on the way. The last BioWare game I genuinely enjoyed was Jade Empire, and it was a pretty light snack compared to the banquet that is BG2.

 

(Yes, despite having criticized BG2 a quite a lot here, it was a banquet. I didn't enjoy everything on the table, but the best courses were really good and there was such a lot of everything that I could just, like, not have any of the turd pudding.)

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

Unlike many in this thread, I have seas of free time and would find it a shame if no challenge in the game lasted longer than thirty minutes.

 

 

Ahh, "seas of free time", those were the days... And indeed, JFSOCC, I want PE to be so vast and long that it lasts for months and years, and that it become that friend that someone mentioned earlier in the thread!

 

@Reever, there's dumbing down, and then there's getting rid of unnecessary complexity and lazy design masquerading as challenge. Sometimes it's hard to tell which is which, and the classics had a lot of both, and downright bad design to boot.

 

Yes, despite having criticized BG2 a quite a lot here, it was a banquet. I didn't enjoy everything on the table, but the best courses were really good and there was such a lot of everything that I could just, like, not have any of the turd pudding.)

 

PrimeJunta: You're dead on, there! If it was easy to tell efficient game design and dumbing down apart, there would be lots of great CRPGs on the market right now, and it ain't. Also, all those mean challenges that are über-boring that we endured back in the day, I mean they just have to go.

Btw, what exactly is turd pudding? Is that black pudding with moose droppings in it?

[Walsingham]

I did the god's blessing uber-quest in Arcanum yesterday evening. It took me two hours and thanks to this thread I did it properly.

 

I felt the need to cheat and get rough areas for some locations, but 'bought' each by throwing away 10k gold into bins each time. Then went criss-crossing the country to find them.

 

However, I stuck to my guns and worked out the sequence using only the in-game clues.

 

In the end the rewards aren't worth the time. But the process of risk, and brain ache ... THAT's the win.

 

You can talk about having other demands on your time. But ultimately that's not a reason to nerf the game complexity. That's a reason you work out how to mount the game interface on a fishing pole.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Walsingham

[Lephys]

@Reever, there's dumbing down, and then there's getting rid of unnecessary complexity and lazy design masquerading as challenge. Sometimes it's hard to tell which is which, and the classics had a lot of both, and downright bad design to boot.

I agree ferociously. It's a common practice, nowadays, for people to sort of get the idea that it can only be one or the other.

 

Most games are made up of at least SOME ratio of good ideas to bad ideas. But, it seems like it's easier now to just say "remember how that game wasn't very good? We should totally never do anything that game did," even if that game had the most incredibly-designed UI ever, or really good writing, etc. So, good things sort of get labeled bad things, by association.

 

I just recently picked up Harvest Moon: Back To Nature on the Playstation Network (on my PS3), because I friggin' LOVE the old Harvest moon games. However, I could easily make a huge list of complaints about it (even while playing and enjoying it), and a pretty good off-the-top-of-my-head list of ways in which to easily improve it.

 

Of course, at the time, a lot of those games were struggling just to have what they had, 'cause of technology and whatnot. But, now, like you said, we'd be remiss not to look at ways to improve on those designs, whether its by removing certain things, re-working certain things, or adding new things.

[SophosTheWise]

I'm actually a bit worried too. Not because I'm really old. Being 24 I'm maybe younger than many of you, and I still haven't played through all Infinity Engine games, let alone other cRPGs, nevertheless I'm also a D&D player and so on and so forth. But I find myself simply not having enough time and will to play through longer games anymore, especially because I play so, so many games (being a videogame journalist in my "free time") and sometimes it feels as if I have never time to breathe. There are so many amazing games coming out practically every week or so and I find that I have a hard time focussing on one game for a longer time. Hopefully PE will change that. The Wasteland 2 Beta hasn't, though.

 

Edit: And besides playing new games all the time to write about, I also have to manage the whole editor team, which takes away a big chunk of gaming time. At least two hours every sunday. And usually on weekends, I visit my girlfriend or she visits me, so I basically don't have open weekends for gaming anymore. 

 

 

I can relate to this. I love games of all kinds to the point where I buy many games because I love the idea or concept of the game but never find myself actually playing them. Not because they're bad games, but because I feel that the amount of time I need to invest into them in order to progress significantly is just too much with everything else I've got going on in my life. 

 

Yes, I can totally, absolutely relate to that feeling. Goddamnit I have spent a lot of time arguing on forums, reading about games etc. but when it comes to actually playing them, I fail often. Ugh. I miss the times when I could get up at 9 o'clock on a saturday, sit in front of the computer and play a single game until the evening. Now I'm just dicking around on the internet half-heartedly or playing games I don't actually want to, because I feel I don't have enough time.

Edited January 10, 2014 by SophosTheWise

[J.E. Sawyer]

Would you (everyone) say that the issues are a) overall game scope b) game difficulty or c) something else?

[Jarmo]

Would you (everyone) say that the issues are a) overall game scope b) game difficulty or c) something else?

 

a) In some way yes. Most likely in contrast to general opinion here, I've never played a game I felt was too short. As such, some like Dreamfall which simply ended unfinished with a.. ummm.. that's it, buy the next in the series if I ever get around to make one..

But proper games no, the length of Shadowrun returns was fine for me. Unlike BG1, where it was just fighting in endless mazes for forever hoping I'd finally reach the damn ending. Usually I get real frustrated in dungeons when I see I didn't reach the boss yet and there's at least another level to drudge. Bazillion short tasks are super fine though.

 

b) In some other ways yes. Especially when there are real damn hard fights where you pretty much have to memorize what's going to happen, like... when you get that boss down, another will rush in and cast death on you and if you haven't prepared yourself beforehand that's it. Or when the difficulty is such that every street thugh is more skilled and faster and stronger than you and has more hit points than the whole party combined. Not so much if it's difficult but fair. But it still might start to feel more like work than fun.

 

c) Mostly this. I'm not fondly remembering times when I had to draw area maps on paper, wall section by wall section, simply to avoid getting hopelessly lost, or write down stuff that's in the quest journal in these days. Or any other busywork that you just have to do, just because.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Jarmo

[PIP-Clownboy]

Interesting topic and Ive been wondering if cRPG's are for me anymore. I play the hell out of aRPG's (I probably have close to 1000 hours invested across all my characters in D3) but when I read about PE I get really discouraged as, IMO, it sounds like total drek. I haven't liked a single mechanic so far and to me it seems like they threw out fun for the sake of "tactics". I am in no way interested in mechanics that are the same but with a twist to just to kick you in the junk. Meh, TBH, I don't think Ive liked a D&D system since 2.5E but Ive never tried Pathfinder or the like so maybe I would enjoy those systems. Ive got my fingers (and toes) crossed that Divinity turns out to be the game I was hoping PE would be.

 

Reading the stronghold update gave me more enjoyment than D3 ever did. Were you addicted to the AH or something?  I don't even, your posts continue to baffle me. 

[Reever]

@Reever, there's dumbing down, and then there's getting rid of unnecessary complexity and lazy design masquerading as challenge. Sometimes it's hard to tell which is which, and the classics had a lot of both, and downright bad design to boot.

 

As to the games you listed, I didn't care much for ME nor DA:O, but IMO their weaknesses were primarily with the aspects you liked, not so much that ME was actiony and DA:O was MMORPG-y. I didn't like the writing in either, and ME's universe was empty and repetitive; it also had the worst loot system in any game I've played, with mountains of endlessly repetitive, generic shinies.

 

I've more or less given up on BioWare actually. They were on an upward slope until BG2, and a downward slope since then with occasional dead-cat bounces on the way. The last BioWare game I genuinely enjoyed was Jade Empire, and it was a pretty light snack compared to the banquet that is BG2.

 

(Yes, despite having criticized BG2 a quite a lot here, it was a banquet. I didn't enjoy everything on the table, but the best courses were really good and there was such a lot of everything that I could just, like, not have any of the turd pudding.)

 

I almost liked your post

I totally agree with the first part! Sadly, there are still people that put the classics on a pedestal and flame anyone who dares to suggest any kind of change...

As for the second part, I know that ME's plot isn't a masterpiece, but being the Sci-Fi fan I am and being under the illusion that my choices mattered (haha, I'm looking at you ME3 ), it was a great experience for me. As for the looting, may I remind you of the rags in P:T? One of my main gripes with RPGs in general is that I never know what the hell I should take along and what I should just throw away. My perfect RPG would have a merchant at every corner :D

And I can't really judge how BW are now in comparison to earlier and it'll still be some time till I can I can only hope they can win some of their former fans back with the new games they're going to bring out the next few years =)

 

 

 

Would you (everyone) say that the issues are a) overall game scope b) game difficulty or c) something else?

 

 

In my opinion, an RPG should be a big game (if that's what you meant with scope). Although I wonder how a bigger series with episodic content would do. That would be more or less perfect for people who don't have that much time to invest in a game, but of course, even that depends on the mechanics and execution.

 

For me personally, the only difficulties I ever have are either fights or puzzles. I'm not really that big of a tactician - nor do I want to really "waste" time to figure out how to kill a specific monster, because I just want to get it on with the story. At the same time, I do know that many people get a sense of accomplishment by doing just that, so it's cool. That's why it's important to me that a game lets you change the challenge fights pose to the player.

Puzzles...sometimes they're fun and interesting, sometimes they're just frustrating and in the way. But many people like them, so I don't expect them to be taken out completely

Another problem people (might) have with games with such a scope is of course remembering the plot points etc. That's why a journal is good to have, I guess. Started The Witcher a year ago I guess (finished the 1st chapter) and I forgot a lot about the plot. That's one of the more extreme cases of taking a hiatus, of course, but that's how it is.

 

What I hate most in games are time limits though, especially in RPGs. That's why I'm anxious to see how a certain element in this game will turn out (is this a spoiler?) and I can't wait to see what I'll think of Fallout or NVWN2:MofTB.

 

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I'm the opposite to most people in this thread. I'm hoping the game will be like the IE games in scope, tactics, gameplay and complexity. However, not as complex and bad as the Fellwoods in IWD 2. The Fellwood maze is a perfect example of what you should avoid doing to players.

[Gfted1]

Reading the stronghold update gave me more enjoyment than D3 ever did. Were you addicted to the AH or something?  I don't even, your posts continue to baffle me.

 

It baffles you that someone may like a game you don't? You have a very limited scope of understanding.

 

Again, what Im not interested in are game mechanics that serve no purpose but to punish. Anyone that can read this quote and think "that sounds like great fun" baffle me: 

 

I've seen unlucky characters get to about 30% Health in one fight due to being healed (Stamina healing) and having Reviving Exhortation used on them after dropping without adequate protection. Going into subsequent fights, those characters typically get put way in the back or with someone protecting them. Otherwise it's really easy for them to get maimed/killed.

 

Your party members can be rendered useless after one "unlucky" fight, forcing you to go back to a rest spot. Awesome! Cant wait to see what happens to the squishy classes. Whats the point of that? Ill guess the response will be "tactics". Etc, etc...

[Lephys]

I'd agree that it's probably MOSTLY C, statistically. Unless a game's just like... 100+ hours long (Skyrim, if you want to "do everything," or even close to everything, for example), it's not really so grand in scope as to cause any problems with "handling" the game. And the difficulty usually isn't the issue. Especially if it's scalable with options and such.

 

I've gotten into a trend, recently, of feeling up to bigger relative challenges in games now. So, I tend to start with "Hard," then bump it down if I need to. With a handful of games, it's just-plain punishing to play on harder difficulties. It's like... training for Major League Gaming, basically. Which is cool if that's what you're after. But, as long as it's not that type of hard (hard to PLAY the game, as opposed to just hard to overcome obstacles and produce the outcomes I want, puzzle things out, etc.), then it doesn't really adversely affect me.

 

Even if I have to play something for an hour-and-a-half every few days, I'm usually only discouraged from tackling it if it's just-plain-negative in one of those respects (I stopped playing Skyrim after about 80 hours, just because you're allowed to basically burn up all the dynamic/progressive content, then you're left just completionizing at that point). But, for example, with Fallout:NV, I actually haven't finished it yet, but it wasn't because I lost interest. It was completely unrelated factors, like real-life, and a bunch of other brand new games, and my distraction by shiny new games. 8P

 

That's just me, though.

 

 

@Gfted1:

 

Why have a 6-person party if you need them all to be at 100% fighting capacity just to advance through the game?

 

I understand your concern. Based on that one vague statement, it could be really bad. But, it also could be designed perfectly fine.

 

Also, if you simply don't like venturing forth while protecting someone who's become fragile, that's totally fine too. That doesn't really make it a design problem, though. Nothing's "forcing" you to trek back to a rest spot just 'cause 5 of your people are at 90% health, and one's at 30%. That's kind of one of the main points of combat: take precautions against your characters taking oodles of damage.

 

If you prefer to go fix that (30% health situation) instead of progressing onward, then the game isn't to blame for your preference. Doesn't make your preference wrong. It just isn't the game's fault.

 

IF you play this game, and, try as you might, you just cannot get through anywhere without everyone always dropping to low health, and you keep having to go back to rest spots every 5 minutes just to make it through a given area, then yeah, I'm going to call that a design problem. Especially if you adjust the difficulty and that still doesn't remedy it. And, again, I understand the concern for that possibility. But... it baffles you that people think dealing with a wounded party member can be fun? Isn't that the same type of bafflement you just criticized PIP-Clownboy for?

Edited January 10, 2014 by Lephys

[Labadal]

I asked myself a year (and a half) ago if I would have a difficult time getting into a big IE style game these days. Then I replayed Arcanum, Torment, NWN2 and its expansions. Currently replaying Baldur's Gate II. I had as fun as I have ever had with them. Time was and is a concern even as a non-parent, but I don't mind as long as Obsidian don't cut down on the scope. My lack of time should not be in the way. It might be a strange viewpoint, but that's how I see it. Pillars of Eternity being inspired by the IE games was the reason I backed with the sum I did. Had it been advertised as something else, I would still have backed, but at a lower tier.