Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, 𝙇𝙤𝙠𝙞 said:

Gonna add some of my own opinions here

  • Mechanics like Persona's social link system are dumb and should have never have gotten past the concept stage, it should be replaced with a system where I can pair certain characters together and get more characterization out of them, it shouldn't only be the MC
  • Sonic was never good and I never understood the appeal, Mario was never good either (The Galaxy games are the only exception)
  • Games purely based on it's difficulty aren't good games 
  • Games with time limits should have a mode where the time limit is excluded, mainly speaking of games like Dead Rising

I agree with the bolded.

 

As for the first bit, I think it makes more sense if certain characters have natural chemistry that results in them choosing to pair up on their own if you do not romance one of them yourself. IE: Garrus and Tali in Mass Effect is frankly adorable. Not that anyone sees it because Tali is irresistable.

 

Maybe this wouldn't work so much for RPG series like Fire Emblem where micromanaged relationships are part of the point, but for RPGs like Persona, Trails, etc., this would be more interesting, and it means that these characters could have better written relationships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 262
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 minutes ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

Maybe this wouldn't work so much for RPG series like Fire Emblem where micromanaged relationships are part of the point, but for RPGs like Persona, Trails, etc., this would be more interesting, and it means that these characters could have better written relationships.

Yeah, I agree completely. ME did it fairly well and I wish more games did it like Mass Effect did it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 𝙇𝙤𝙠𝙞 said:

Games purely based on it's difficulty aren't good games 

What are these games? Like, examples?

I´m under the impression that many times the individual challenge of the game [mechanics/optional tools/challenge to be overcome], set and limited by the advertised franchise or theme (souls-like, rogue-like, Mario, Call of Duty with the mental evocations associated with them and all these labels I mean) are... poorly used or unused for any reason (i.e. bad tutorials), by players not familiar with said  franchise and it´s cemented/established canon of must-haves (rolling/blocking/parrying in soulslikes, maybe metaprogression in roguelikes) and thus, game bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2023 at 5:40 PM, Fabulously Olivier said:

As for the first bit, I think it makes more sense if certain characters have natural chemistry that results in them choosing to pair up on their own if you do not romance one of them yourself. IE: Garrus and Tali in Mass Effect is frankly adorable. Not that anyone sees it because Tali is irresistable.

Tali was adorable, of course, but she was also straight, so wasn't available as a romance option to anyone playing as female Shepard. Which, honestly, I would recommend that everyone should be doing. Meer's performance as male Shepard was good, but Hale's performance as female Shepard was transcendental and possiby the best thing about that series.

On 4/28/2023 at 6:38 PM, 𝙇𝙤𝙠𝙞 said:

Games I'm talking about are mainly soulsbourne games and others like I Wanna Be The Guy, games like Dark Souls at least have interesting lore so they're kind of the exception

I Wanna Be The Guy is more thanjust difficult for the sake of difficult. It has a sense of humour, surprisingly tight controls, a decent learning curve, and so on. It obviously is a difficult game and not for everyone (back when I played it, I gave up at Mike Tyson), but I don't think it's fair to characterise it as nothing but gratuitous difficulty.

The best example that I can think of for pure difficulty at the expense of all other considerations (and why it sucks) is bad levels in Super Mario Maker. People in Mario Maker have figured out that making incredibly difficult levels is really easy. Just string together a bunch of pixel-perfect jumps, some RNG nonsense, hidden stuff that the player has no way of knowing about, stuff that will waste your time, and so on and so forth, and you can make a really difficult level. And it will suck and nobody will want to play it. Making difficult games is easy. Making games that are difficult but still fun (for the right people) is hard.

On 4/28/2023 at 6:36 PM, Imuabicus said:

metaprogression in roguelikes

You know, this is a good place to hang my own unpopular opinion. I don't enjoy metaprogression systems in roguelikes, and much prefer playing roguelikes that don't have them. Part of what I enjoy about roguelikes is getting to see myself improve at the game. When I first play, I will suck and do badly. Then I will play the game more, get better, and start getting further and further each time. The stuff that used to kill me ends up being trivial. It's a really satisfying feeling. With meta-progression, I feel as if that's just completely stripped away. When I first play the game, I die because the game is unfairly stacked against me and I didn't really have a chance. Then when I finally win, it's not because I've learned the game, it's because I've unlocked enough metaprogression to make the game easy. It just feels completely backwards to me. The game is (mechanically and objectively) hardest when I am new at the game and suck at it, but then as I get better and better and start to want to really challenge myself, the game gets (mechnically and objectively) easier? I don't get the appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, lenticular said:

You know, this is a good place to hang my own unpopular opinion. I don't enjoy metaprogression systems in roguelikes, and much prefer playing roguelikes that don't have them. Part of what I enjoy about roguelikes is getting to see myself improve at the game. When I first play, I will suck and do badly. Then I will play the game more, get better, and start getting further and further each time. The stuff that used to kill me ends up being trivial. It's a really satisfying feeling. With meta-progression, I feel as if that's just completely stripped away. When I first play the game, I die because the game is unfairly stacked against me and I didn't really have a chance. Then when I finally win, it's not because I've learned the game, it's because I've unlocked enough metaprogression to make the game easy. It just feels completely backwards to me. The game is (mechanically and objectively) hardest when I am new at the game and suck at it, but then as I get better and better and start to want to really challenge myself, the game gets (mechnically and objectively) easier? I don't get the appeal.

Pretty sure the only roguelike I played more than 10 hours in recent time is Hades, and 

1) I don´t remember the extent of meta-progression in it

2) the amount of time you deal with individual enemies tends to be too little for me to be upset about getting done with them faster.

I think meta-progression makes getting to the boss/elite what have you easier and therefore let´s you have more or faster attempts at the bosses and the Minotaur and his boi, the big man himself took more than just a few attempts. It just cuts away unnessecary trouble, because dodging the same charge attack of the same enemy for the who knows how many times... yeah naw. It´s just the runback to the boss, but there´s no Stake of Marika nearby. And as for the bosses... yeah you can fight the boss with a rusted dagger, but you could also just shoot him in the face?

The appeal is probably the new stuff you find and how everything combines, more than anything.

Also Hades has extra difficulty settings, so does Rogue Legacy and it´s 2 version too. There´s always something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it increasingly hard to take people who criticize turn based combat seriously, when I go back and play older action games (even as recently as the PS3/360 era) and find that they almost universally have aged like milk. We have gotten so much better at basic camera controls, input responsiveness, and enemy design in the last generation, and I suspect that in 5+ years time, I'll find that current action games also suffer from jank that we just don't see now.

 

Whereas turn based games are timeless. Even if games like Persona 5 refined the combat to new heights, the old games still play as well as intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

I find it increasingly hard to take people who criticize turn based combat seriously, when I go back and play older action games (even as recently as the PS3/360 era) and find that they almost universally have aged like milk. We have gotten so much better at basic camera controls, input responsiveness, and enemy design in the last generation, and I suspect that in 5+ years time, I'll find that current action games also suffer from jank that we just don't see now.

 

Whereas turn based games are timeless. Even if games like Persona 5 refined the combat to new heights, the old games still play as well as intended.

When I first played Persona 5 and tested whether you get a game over when Joker dies (yes, I think it's prudent to Save and then Test before finding out the hard way in a game that lacks autosave/checkpoints), the High of the game ended right there. We're still doing this huh? It is the year 20XX according to that calendar and my human, supposedly free thinking party members will not think to revive me unless I'm conscious enough to tell them to do it. No in-universe justification like my party is made up of demons whose contracts end when I die. I got nothing against special Game Over states, but this SMT trope is ancient and not even implied in the forced tutorials as far as I recall. It's SMT's equivalent to Pokemon's HMs, but even Pokemon ditched those after 20 years. Only to reappear later in the form of Xenoblade 2's Field Skills.

Turn based games have absolutely aged in their own ways. You just have to unplug and look at them from the perspective of a genre-outsider. Their battle mechanics can be obviously imbalanced or not give you enough information to make dynamic and informed decisions. Stats hidden from the player are still a thing. Ultra-rare drops - and how you'd only know about them from a guide. Random encounters and a 50/50 chance of Flee Success are still ubiquitous. Think of every time you died due to pure RNG and compare that to every time an action game's camera contributed a little bit to your death. Fire Emblem's Fog of War hasn't been updated since FE6 - I don't even need to have played the latest one to guess that it still doesn't impact enemy AI to imply they also have limited vision.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

When I first played Persona 5 and tested whether you get a game over when Joker dies (yes, I think it's prudent to Save and then Test before finding out the hard way in a game that lacks autosave/checkpoints), the High of the game ended right there. We're still doing this huh? It is the year 20XX according to that calendar and my human, supposedly free thinking party members will not think to revive me unless I'm conscious enough to tell them to do it. No in-universe justification like my party is made up of demons whose contracts end when I die. I got nothing against special Game Over states, but this SMT trope is ancient and not even implied in the forced tutorials as far as I recall. It's SMT's equivalent to Pokemon's HMs, but even Pokemon ditched those after 20 years. Only to reappear later in the form of Xenoblade 2's Field Skills.

Turn based games have absolutely aged in their own ways. You just have to unplug and look at them from the perspective of a genre-outsider. Their battle mechanics can be obviously imbalanced or not give you enough information to make dynamic and informed decisions. Stats hidden from the player are still a thing. Ultra-rare drops - and how you'd only know about them from a guide. Random encounters and a 50/50 chance of Flee Success are still ubiquitous. Think of every time you died due to pure RNG and compare that to every time an action game's camera contributed a little bit to your death. Fire Emblem's Fog of War hasn't been updated since FE6 - I don't even need to have played the latest one to guess that it still doesn't impact enemy AI to imply they also have limited vision.

 

I mean these days fandom encounters are typically a sign of a lower budget game (no budget to afford fully animated field models).

 

Hidden stats will not affect the average player. Not even in tactics games. The normal JRPG player does not and is not willing to calculate predicted damage in any scenario. For most, knowing that x move is effective against y enemy, and z ally is low health and needs healing is enough to get through the game with minimal frustration.

 

Not to say that there isn't also RNG in action games that can and will lead to frustration. I'm currently playing Yakuza 3, and it truly seems like I have no agency over whether bosses block my attacks, and my god, they block most of them (even if I land earlier hits in a combo - which is something a player cannot do to enemy combos). It also seems like there is no agency over whether they instantly break out of being grabbed. And while these things are kind of still issues in more recent entries, they're way, way worse in older ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

I mean these days fandom encounters are typically a sign of a lower budget game (no budget to afford fully animated field models).

How low budget we talking? Have we reached the point where $60 in 2023 is a low budget release? Not trying to dunk on the recent, Square-Enix-Published Octopath Traveler 2, just a genuine question. Did they put random encounters in the game because of the game's price point/developmental budget or because it's a genre staple that few fans are willing to criticize? I'm willing to bet it's the latter. And surely their budget could spare enemy sprites roaming areas like in Chrono Trigger.

Quote

Hidden stats will not affect the average player. Not even in tactics games. The normal JRPG player does not and is not willing to calculate predicted damage in any scenario. For most, knowing that x move is effective against y enemy, and z ally is low health and needs healing is enough to get through the game with minimal frustration.

That's exactly right. The player vibes it out in lieu of information. Which is fine, though it reminds me of how many people have gravitated to Intelligent Systems' RPGs (Fire Emblem and Paper Mario) due to their use of smaller digit numbers. The information is easily parsed and counted out by the player. And Fire Emblem's battle forecast is a revelation in game design. When combat is predictable, it becomes strategic and engaging in a genre that is asking the player to make conscious choices from a menu.

What I really meant regarding "hidden stats" is things like, how resistant is the enemy to my sleep spell? I feel like I'm lucky if I see the words IMMUNE pop up on an attempt, let alone "Resistant". And if so, how resistant? The difference between 50% resistant and 90% resistant is enough to sway me on choosing between Sleep or Attack. How likely is my Flee attempt from this random encounter? Is there a Scan ability, and how much information does it get me? What are my FE unit's Growth Rates, or my pokemon's Individual Values? How does my play experience benefit from the game hiding these stats from me?

Quote

Not to say that there isn't also RNG in action games that can and will lead to frustration. I'm currently playing Yakuza 3, and it truly seems like I have no agency over whether bosses block my attacks, and my god, they block most of them (even if I land earlier hits in a combo - which is something a player cannot do to enemy combos). It also seems like there is no agency over whether they instantly break out of being grabbed. And while these things are kind of still issues in more recent entries, they're way, way worse in older ones.

Yakuza combat has some annoying idiosyncracies with its boss designs, but I don't think these are RNG scenarios. To get past blocks consistently, try attacking from the side or back. They can't break out of your combos this way either. A well timed dodge to the side often places you directly past their block. Kiryu has the same weakness. Can't block attacks that he's not facing (unless there's some unlockable skill permitting it). And if an enemy is comboing you from the front, try holding block, it may bail you out from some damage.

As for their grab breaks, it's often a matter of have you grabbed them already not. Similar to how the damage of Heat Actions drops off if you've done one already. The game wants you to mix it up. Grabbing from behind typically has more favorable results too. I would be surprised if there was any RNG at play here. In my experience I think it's just bosses permitting X amount of grabs, or perhaps there's some hidden cooldown period before a grab will work again.

Edited by Zapp Branniglenn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

How low budget we talking? Have we reached the point where $60 in 2023 is a low budget release? Not trying to dunk on the recent, Square-Enix-Published Octopath Traveler 2, just a genuine question. Did they put random encounters in the game because of the game's price point/developmental budget or because it's a genre staple that few fans are willing to criticize? I'm willing to bet it's the latter. And surely their budget could spare enemy sprites roaming areas like in Chrono Trigger.

That's exactly right. The player vibes it out in lieu of information. Which is fine, though it reminds me of how many people have gravitated to Intelligent Systems' RPGs (Fire Emblem and Paper Mario) due to their use of smaller digit numbers. The information is easily parsed and counted out by the player. And Fire Emblem's battle forecast is a revelation in game design. When combat is predictable, it becomes strategic and engaging in a genre that is asking the player to make conscious choices from a menu.

What I really meant regarding "hidden stats" is things like, how resistant is the enemy to my sleep spell? I feel like I'm lucky if I see the words IMMUNE pop up on an attempt, let alone "Resistant". And if so, how resistant? The difference between 50% resistant and 90% resistant is enough to sway me on choosing between Sleep or Attack. How likely is my Flee attempt from this random encounter? Is there a Scan ability, and how much information does it get me? What are my FE unit's Growth Rates, or my pokemon's Individual Values? How does my play experience benefit from the game hiding these stats from me?

Yakuza combat has some annoying idiosyncracies with its boss designs, but I don't think these are RNG scenarios. To get past blocks consistently, try attacking from the side or back. They can't break out of your combos this way either. A well timed dodge to the side often places you directly past their block. Kiryu has the same weakness. Can't block attacks that he's not facing (unless there's some unlockable skill permitting it). And if an enemy is comboing you from the front, try holding block, it may bail you out from some damage.

As for their grab breaks, it's often a matter of have you grabbed them already not. Similar to how the damage of Heat Actions drops off if you've done one already. The game wants you to mix it up. Grabbing from behind typically has more favorable results too. I would be surprised if there was any RNG at play here. In my experience I think it's just bosses permitting X amount of grabs, or perhaps there's some hidden cooldown period before a grab will work again.

Now, I think the whole budget thing is being needlessly obfuscated. It isn't the price being charged. It isn't the size of the publisher. Octopath Traveler 2 is a lower budget game being published by Square Enix. It does not cost as much to make as a Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest, and it isn't expected to sell as many copies to turn a profit. It's intentionally niche. And I find it hard to argue that random encounters are just there to evoke nostalgia when Dragon Quest is the most nostalgia-baity, traditionalist franchise in Square's repertoire, and even it has ditched random encounters. 

 

I simply struggle to think of a single major JRPG IP that still utilizes random encounters. FF doesn't. DQ doesn't. Persona and SMT don't. Tales doesn't. Trails and Ys don't. Even Pokemon is starting to move away from them, and Gamefreak are literally the least talented, most miserly AAA devs in the industry. It really seems like random encounters are more and more the domain of indie/AA JRPGs. 

 

And yes, Fire Emblem's battle forecast is revolutionary. But the reason it's revolutionary is that it even further reduces the need for players to deal with math and stats. I for one will never crunch the numbers on how many rounds of combat a unit can survive or work out a matchup in my head, and now I'll never feel like I need to either. That's just wonderful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

Now, I think the whole budget thing is being needlessly obfuscated. It isn't the price being charged. It isn't the size of the publisher. Octopath Traveler 2 is a lower budget game being published by Square Enix. It does not cost as much to make as a Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest, and it isn't expected to sell as many copies to turn a profit. It's intentionally niche. And I find it hard to argue that random encounters are just there to evoke nostalgia when Dragon Quest is the most nostalgia-baity, traditionalist franchise in Square's repertoire, and even it has ditched random encounters. 

I simply struggle to think of a single major JRPG IP that still utilizes random encounters. FF doesn't. DQ doesn't. Persona and SMT don't. Tales doesn't. Trails and Ys don't. Even Pokemon is starting to move away from them, and Gamefreak are literally the least talented, most miserly AAA devs in the industry. It really seems like random encounters are more and more the domain of indie/AA JRPGs. 

The first Octopath Traveler sold 3 million units according to Square, which certainly outperforms the latest non-spinoff entries of SMT, Tales, Trails, and Ys. It's a fair point that for Square Enix standards it's not the toppest tier IP in their catalogue but I think we're straying off of the topic. Why exclude this or that game based on perceived budget and 'intentional niche-ness'? OT2 is a turn based JRPG, and we were talking about that style of combat. I'm not even sure what place Ys and Tales have in this discussion, as those were always action games first.

Turn based rpgs with involuntary random encounters still release as recently as the year 2023. It's not up for debate, it's an observable fact. What is up for debate is whether this style of game has aged any better or worse than the Xbox360/PS3 era of action games you brought up. And yeah I wouldn't exactly place Yakuza 3 among the PS3's Top 10 action games. Just like I wouldn't have picked FF13 to represent JRPGs. Actually...FF13 would definitely make the top 10 PS3 JRPG list. Top 5 potentially. Slim pickings back then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

For me, gaming is often about immersing myself in a captivating story or exploring intricate game worlds. Sometimes, I prefer a more relaxed experience that allows me to focus on the narrative or simply enjoy the gameplay without the frustration of constant challenges. The easy mode can provide a smoother, less stressful journey, allowing me to appreciate the game's other elements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, HendrikMoaG said:

For me, gaming is often about immersing myself in a captivating story or exploring intricate game worlds. Sometimes, I prefer a more relaxed experience that allows me to focus on the narrative or simply enjoy the gameplay without the frustration of constant challenges. The easy mode can provide a smoother, less stressful journey, allowing me to appreciate the game's other elements.

I agree with this.

 

Also, some franchises make more sense/have less ludonarrative dissonance on Easy Mode (Doom, God of War).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the broken nature of Trails of Cold Steel/Reverie very boring. Playing the game without the enemy getting to play isnt fun in any manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I have an "unpopular" one that seems to be becoming the mainstream or popular one nowadays, considering the market dynamics of the last couple years (and future projections):

Digital > Physical as far as media go. I have a shit ton of physical goods back home that I haven't been able to move here and I'm not looking forward to getting them here. I love the convienience of logging in on my devices and having access to my library.

Other than that, I have another that seems more common nowadays: Souls games are not difficult, they just HAMMER impatient players who want to button mash and facetank everything, but if you pay attention they reveal their patterns so you can react appropriately.

Guess I don't really have unpopular opinions haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, RibsChirino said:

Digital > Physical as far as media go. I have a shit ton of physical goods back home that I haven't been able to move here and I'm not looking forward to getting them here. I love the convienience of logging in on my devices and having access to my library.

Digital and physical each have pretty sizable benefits and drawbacks when compared to each other. Digital requires less storage space, can be bought and then played quickly and at any time, can't be lost or damaged, has way less barrier to entry for indie devs, and so on. Obviously. Whereas physical can more easily be lent out or resold, don't depend on a company keeping their servers online, work even if you have bad/no internet access, and so on. Also obviously. I don't think it's right to say that either one is better than the other. It's just a personal preference thing which one an individual prefers.

(I personally like digital as well, but that's just me.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Post Reaper of Souls Diablo 3 is better than Diablo 2 (and Resurrected) in every regard. Yes, even in regards to the build craft Diablo 2 gets so much praise for.

 

It plays better, it looks better, it's faster, it has actual tangible skill choices, it's more generous with loot, classes aren't genderlocked, and it doesn't have the same amount of inventory space as an old, busted wallet.

Edited by Fabulously Olivier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

Post Reaper of Souls Diablo 3 is better than Diablo 2 (and Resurrected) in every regard. Yes, even in regards to the build craft Diablo 2 gets so much praise for.

 

It plays better, it looks better, it's faster, it has actual tangible skill choices, it's more generous with loot, classes aren't genderlocked, and it doesn't have the same amount of inventory space as an old, busted wallet.

stop posting things that i agree with everywhere wtf

 

d2x is lionized for a zeitgeist that can never be re-realized, and outside of that zeitgeist it's an exceptionally moody and atmospheric but not very good game outside of those elements. in its element, in approx. 2003 b.net, it is unapproachable; the time has passed. this cannot be experienced again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who also played Diablo 2 back in like 2005, and later revisited it before playing Diablo 3... yeah, entirely true. D3's launch was awful, D2's impact is undeniable, but in 2023, D3 is easily the better game; I'd recommend it to anyone who doesn't hate the genre, and I wouldn't recommend D2 to anyone as anything but a curiosity.

 

Probably my most controversial gaming opinions centre around RPGs. Specifically: Baldur's Gate 1 is genuinely atrocious, but Baldur's Gate 2 is genuinely fantastic (and Siege of Dragonspear is pretty good! Gamers are just mad because nostalgia and one minor NPC vaguely implies she's transgender.) Anyone with an interest in RPGs should play BG2, and then go on to play SoD if they really liked BG2. Also, Obsidian get a pass that they really shouldn't for releasing unfinished, non-functioning games which papers over the fact that they are often genuinely just bad. Exceptions: Mask of the Betrayer (do not play vanilla NWN2.), New Vegas (this is not an unpopular opinion lol) and the genuinely fantastic Pentiment, which everyone should play, and the existence of which has really tamped down my anti-Obsidian trutherism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Diablo has overall gone downhill since the 1st game haha I still like that one the best, and the sequels are fun games but never captured the mood of the 1st game for me. Still haven't played D4 but it looks cool

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another benefit of digital is forwards compatibility. So long as Steam continues to exist, I can play those games on any future computer. And that's plenty convenient compared to hooking up several generations of playstation or nintendo hardware

31 minutes ago, Parrhesia said:

Probably my most controversial gaming opinions centre around RPGs. Specifically: Baldur's Gate 1 is genuinely atrocious, but Baldur's Gate 2 is genuinely fantastic 

I'm another person that bounced off BG1 and I've been hearing this a lot. It's a shame that 2 is such a direct sequel, but I don't think I'd mind skipping ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

I'm another person that bounced off BG1 and I've been hearing this a lot. It's a shame that 2 is such a direct sequel, but I don't think I'd mind skipping ahead.

i'll offer a second perspective: bg1 fucking sucks, it's a terrible game. bg2 has a great narrative and it has all of the context you need built in. just go play bg2 and, hopefully, enjoy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess me enjoying BG1 is an unpopular opinion, then. :lol: Not so much the earlygame when every fight is a kitefest because everybody is one unlucky roll away from exploding if you allow anything to attack you, but I find that the game becomes quite fun once you get in the Lv. 5-7 regions and have more options open up - thieves stealthing semi-reliably, Fire Resist plus Fire Ball, Web plus Free Action (and/or summoned spiders), that kind of stuff.

My least favourite part of the series is actually Throne of Bhaal. The narrative feels rushed (you go right from beating Jonny to Endgame! Battle Royale!!), the main villain doesn't really hold up to Sarevok and Jon, and mechanically, it feels a bit like a victory lap that streches for way too long. If I remember things correctly, your party members are starting to get their high level abilities somewhere around the later stretches of the Underdark, so you come back to Athkatla overpowered, clean up some lingering side quests overpowered, fight Bodhi and Jon overpowered, and then enter ToB overpowered.

I do agree with Parrhesia that Siege of Dragonspear is pretty decent. I don't think the main plot is particularly great, but the sidequests, map design, set-piece battles, and (most of the) character interactions I enjoy quite a lot. It helps that this is also the level span that I think BG's mechanics work the best in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...