"This game is worse than I remember"

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

I'm sure you've said the phrase yourself at some point. Be it a game from childhood, something you forgot about and came back to... or a game you dropped for "some reason" but in the back of your mind you knew there was reason behind it. "But what?" you ask yourself. That is, until you pick up the game again, and...

"This game is worse than I remember"

I had this experience with God Eater 2 recently. After thoroughly enjoying the first game in the series many times and never finishing the sequel just shy of the ending by maybe an hour, I wondered why this was the case recently and booted it up. I knew to a degree what I disliked about it, but it'd been many years since I played it, so I thought maybe it wasn't that bad. ... It was that bad. The characters, story, tone, pacing, all of it just feels completely out of whack compared to the first. It doesn't help I didn't like the music as much, and the in-game cutscenes got their audio compressed to crackly and awful levels on the PS Vita version. And now I remember exactly why I dropped it. This time though, I'm dropping it a lot sooner.

And as with most personal experience, it makes me curious if other users had this similar experience. So, let's hear it!

Okay so this isn't a 'worse than i remember' rather than a 'worse than everyone told me it was'

Halo.

I never played the first one. I played 2, ODST and Reach. Halo 2 was okay, ODST was great, Reach was perfect. And I have the Master Chief collection on the Steams and Halo 1 just came out, so fuck it lets see what the deal is.

Halo 1 sucks. The level design is just open. Not like open ended, just open. Huge sprawling levels with minutes worth of driving and no enemies, and God help you if the puma was destroyed and you have to hoof it through the huge empty levels. Also I vaguely remember the other games have the NPC allies do shit, but in Halo? They can't drive, can't shoot, can't fight. They do nothing.
Also Cortana is annoying a fuck, and the Master Chief just being perfect is dumb. He's a literal God, can't be killed, can't be stopped.

I dunno. Maybe Bungie is like From Software in that their games got better as they got more experience.

Enter The Matrix

Now, I was in middle school and really into edgy shit. So when I heard the existence of a game based on the Matrix trilogy, I knew I had to get it. I played it back in 2008, a few years after its initial release. I thought the combat, the gun play, and the ability to go into slow-mo and do some cool shit was amazing. Even as I moved on with my life, I was convinced it was a good game

I recently dug up my old GameCube and played various games, including ETM. I realize i didn't know what I was talking about and the game was really bad. The 3d models look like shit, the story is one giant preview for the third film, and the combat is really wonky.

Jak 3

Jak 2 was infamously hard and punishing, and I had always found Jak 3 a lot more comfortable and fun to play. But the last time I returned to it a few years back I was hit by how fucking terrible it was to control. The smoothness of modern controls have ruined a lot of older games I used to like.

System Shock 2

This was just irritating to replay. Everything feels really jank and the only good part of the story is the twist. The rest is fetch em quests that I just stopped caring about.

Baulder's Gate 1 and to a lesser extent 2

BG1 would only be a single mission into today's RPG landscape. I doesn't really bother having anything story related until you reach BG, which you are blocked from unless you somehow won the lotto. I remember slight adventures in other parts of the land but nothing that sticks.

BG2 is way better, and the side mission are far more memorable. By Throne of Baal, you are god tier and its ridiculous and finally makes BG combat fun.

Advent Rising

First time I played the game back in 2005 I thought it was incredible, nowadays I see how rushed and broken it is.

In hindsight I think the thing that really drew me in was the amazing soundtrack and the fact that you basically had Jedi powers.

That one game that meant so much to you as a kid and you feel still holds up. It doesn't and you thinking it does just proves you have horrible taste.

DragonAge: Origins.

Aside from a deathly dull title, BioWare's first outing in the Thedas setting has got to be one of the most dour, sluggish and overall aggravating to play RPGs.

Also, fuck Morrigan, the snooty fucking cow.

Silentpony:
Okay so this isn't a 'worse than i remember' rather than a 'worse than everyone told me it was'

Halo.

I never played the first one. I played 2, ODST and Reach. Halo 2 was okay, ODST was great, Reach was perfect. And I have the Master Chief collection on the Steams and Halo 1 just came out, so fuck it lets see what the deal is.

Halo 1 sucks. The level design is just open. Not like open ended, just open. Huge sprawling levels with minutes worth of driving and no enemies, and God help you if the puma was destroyed and you have to hoof it through the huge empty levels. Also I vaguely remember the other games have the NPC allies do shit, but in Halo? They can't drive, can't shoot, can't fight. They do nothing.
Also Cortana is annoying a fuck, and the Master Chief just being perfect is dumb. He's a literal God, can't be killed, can't be stopped.

I dunno. Maybe Bungie is like From Software in that their games got better as they got more experience.

I played Halo CE on PC back in like 2008 after hearing so much praise for the game and after completing it I couldn't tell what the fuss is about. To be fair, I didn't play the MP because I don't normally play MP so based on the campaign my verdict was "It's okay/fine/average".

I never did bother with any of the others. A guy I knew telling me "There's a good story if you read the books" didn't help matters much.

Most of JRPG sadly, combat is just boring and there's a lot of it. I freaking adored xenogears back in the days, but last I tried playing it I barely made it trough a quarter of the game before I stopped since most of it is just boring combat that never evolve.

It's not that turn based combat can't work, there's plenty of example where it can work, either trough interesting combat mechanic or interesting way to build your character/party mixed with challenging dungeon where recovering health/mana isn't easy.

I'd love for remake of a lot of the older SNES/PS1 JRPG with more interesting takes on the turn based combat.

Meiam:
Most of JRPG sadly, combat is just boring and there's a lot of it. I freaking adored xenogears back in the days, but last I tried playing it I barely made it trough a quarter of the game before I stopped since most of it is just boring combat that never evolve.

It's not that turn based combat can't work, there's plenty of example where it can work, either trough interesting combat mechanic or interesting way to build your character/party mixed with challenging dungeon where recovering health/mana isn't easy.

I'd love for remake of a lot of the older SNES/PS1 JRPG with more interesting takes on the turn based combat.

Thank You!

The vast majority of JRPG combat is just bad, poorly designed turn-based combat.

As someone who almost never stops playing the games I like, I will never understand people who misremember games. If you don't enjoy a game you used to like, you've got nobody to blame but yourself.

Squilookle:
As someone who almost never stops playing the games I like, I will never understand people who misremember games. If you don't enjoy a game you used to like, you've got nobody to blame but yourself.

Or sometimes the passage of time allows us to experience the game with different, wiser eyes. Mass Effect is still a great game.....with a combat system that's kind of shit. Also none of the voice actors, aside from maybe Wrex and Garrus had settled into themselves. ME Tali and ME2 Tali are night and day, for example.

Final Fantasy 7, which I'd gone back over in January before tackling any thoughts on the remake.

While I did recall how badly the pacing falls off after Midgar, I didn't quite recall just how insanely large the gaps of any meaningful progress in the narrative are, and the ludicrously flimsy reasons to push the player around on the "world tour" segment. Or how many times it tries to retwist its plots elements like Shyamalan on a coke bender.

20-30 year turn based ATB combat was never going to shine for depth from a modern lens of course. But I'd also forgotten all the weird janky nonsense with how your builds wre jammed into and limited up by the equipped gear. And the bland interchangeable characters from a tactical sense (a trait it would share with FF8).

Silentpony:
Okay so this isn't a 'worse than i remember' rather than a

'worse than everyone told me it was'

Maybe a different thread?

ODST was great,

Da fuq?

and God help you if the puma was destroyed and you have to hoof it through the huge empty levels.

Puma? Surely you mean Chupathingy. :P

Also, did they change something? Because on both the Xbox and original PC versions, vehicles couldn't be destroyed apart from the Banshee (and enemy vehicles).

and the Master Chief just being perfect is dumb. He's a literal God, can't be killed, can't be stopped.

Sorry, but I really disagree there. John is hardly unstoppable in the Halo games - certainly not in H1. Yes, he's a supersoldier, but whatever victories he gets against the Covenant, he's entirely on the defence against the Flood, in the sense that they can't be overcome through conventional means. He has to destroy Alpha Halo to destroy them, and even then fails to complete the job.

Worgen:
That one game that meant so much to you as a kid and you feel still holds up. It doesn't and you thinking it does just proves you have horrible taste.

How dare you say that about that game! That game is perfect! I love that game and it holds up perfectly! Never say anything about that game again!

Gordon_4:
DragonAge: Origins.

Aside from a deathly dull title, BioWare?s first outing in the Thedas setting has got to be one of the most dour, sluggish and overall aggravating to play RPGs.

Also, fuck Morrigan, the snooty fucking cow.

Is it better than Inquisition?

Gordon_4:

Squilookle:
As someone who almost never stops playing the games I like, I will never understand people who misremember games. If you don't enjoy a game you used to like, you've got nobody to blame but yourself.

Or sometimes the passage of time allows us to experience the game with different, wiser eyes. Mass Effect is still a great game.....with a combat system that's kind of shit. Also none of the voice actors, aside from maybe Wrex and Garrus had settled into themselves. ME Tali and ME2 Tali are night and day, for example.

That's you changing, not the game. If the game played well on release, it does not become more or less so as other games come out. Your perception of it might, but the game itself is the same eternal. (Assuming it's not a live service or endlessly patched post launch game. For those all bets are off).

Donkey Kong 64. Remember loving it when I first played it and was excited about replaying it so many years later... but it's a mostly-empty world with fairly poor controls and unsatisfying gameplay.

Squilookle:

That's you changing, not the game. If the game played well on release, it does not become more or less so as other games come out. Your perception of it might, but the game itself is the same eternal. (Assuming it's not a live service or endlessly patched post launch game. For those all bets are off).

Well, yeah, but that's all pretty obvious, isn't it? We all know its perception. Nobody is under the impression the games have magically transformed in the intervening years. The thread topic is about perception.

Doom and Doom2. Played those recently, and then again with Brutal Doom, and there's a lot to like, but there's some level designs that are just awful. Wandering round in circles having killed everything and trying to find a key or and exit or something, in a map that makes no sense.

Now, there's some nice maps, but they'd not quite gotten to the "this is a laboratory or other facility" rather than "this is a series of random rooms stuck together" back then.

Hawki:
SNIP

I guess they changed it 'cause my Puma got destroyed about half-way through the second level where you have to go around rescuing dudes. I had jumped out to kill some elites, and my gunner and sidekick got out to do some shooting, a grunt threw a grenade at them, it exploded, Puma is totaled, friends are dead and I have to walk the rest of the mission. And it was stupid.

And ODST was amazing. The soundtrack was neat, it was mostly nighttime fighting in the rain with a jazzy soundtrack, so it felt very noir. and then we had Malcolm Reynolds doing his best tough-guy impression.

and what I mean by Master Chief being invincible is that he's always the sole survivor of missions. He gets sent in with like a dozen mooks to do a thing, and all the mooks get killed by explosions and energy blades and Master Chief is just strutting around with plot armor, and gameplay wise the mooks are the worst. They cant hit anything, and I'm convinced their guns have been zeroed, and that they can't kill anything. That it was decided the player had to get all the kills, and the NPCs are just for show.

Streets of Rage 1 & the US version of 3. The only thing saving 1 is the music by Yuzo Koshiro and the neat background designs. Everything else aged poorly. Most of the characters have the same move sets with only visual differences and power or speed. Otherwise all characters function exactly the same. 3 was absurdly hard for no reason other than that the Japanese version was too easy on, even on the hardest setting. The censorship, aside the removal of Ash, has aged poorly too.

Bayonetta 1 - Not exactly worse, but the insta-death QTEs and overly long gimmick section stick out real bad and is a sign of 2009/10 game design. The weapon switching mechanics is archaic compared to DMC 3(Switch or modded PC version)/4/5/DmC. Bayonetta 2 fixes most of these issues.

Lollipop Chainsaw - The gameplay ages worse every year. The controls are not horrible, but there are many combat games of this genre better than LC. Juliet, the characters, and the soundtrack are the saving grace. The game also reeks of 2012/13 pop culture. Making LC age even worse in that regard.

DmC - Everything unless you're playing the DE version or mods on the PC.

DMC3 - Unless you're playing on the Switch or a modded version on the PC, Style Switching is limited and makes Dante Must Die even more tedious now. Also, whose idea was it to take half of the enemy roster and make them uncomboable? On a system built off of doinf stylish combos. Thank god for 4,5, & the reboot drop this, because it was stupid.

DMC4 (Vanilla) - Rushed campaign, no extra costumes, dice maze (once you know the trick it becomes almost fun), lazy backtracking, and shitty chimaera infected enemies. Still a fun game though. But once you play the Special Edition with all of the extra characters and goodies, there is no reason to go back to the original iteration of 4.

Casual Shinji:
The smoothness of modern controls have ruined a lot of older games I used to like.

I've frequently lamented that the 3D platformer more-or-less died as a genre around the time they really started getting 3rd person controls right (around the PS3 era)
3rd person games have never been better to control than now, but for some reason, developers don't like to make 3d platformers any more.

As for me, I loved a bunch of objectively terrible games back when I was a kid. I only had access to an outdated Dos computer back in the 90s, so while everyone else was playing Mario and Sonic, I was playing stuff like Moraff's World, Snarf, Mlotra, Sorcerian, Aldo's Adventure and a bunch of other games that kinda really suck, but were the best I had available the time.
Oh, and an Atari 2600 that I bought from a thrift store. Those games sucked, too...

Silentpony:

I guess they changed it 'cause my Puma got destroyed about half-way through the second level where you have to go around rescuing dudes. I had jumped out to kill some elites, and my gunner and sidekick got out to do some shooting, a grunt threw a grenade at them, it exploded, Puma is totaled, friends are dead and I have to walk the rest of the mission. And it was stupid.

Okay, that's definitely a change. And if they changed it on the Silent Cartographer map...poor guy.

And ODST was amazing. The soundtrack was neat, it was mostly nighttime fighting in the rain

Ah yes, it's so fun playing a game where 80% of the time you can't see anything.

with a jazzy soundtrack, so it felt very noir.

And arguably tonally discordant from Halo, but whatever.

I have little love for ODST, and it's easily my least favourite game in the series. The game is basically an expansion to Halo 3, only full priced. It's a weird mix of open world and stealth in the Rookie sections, and fails at both, because you don't really have free roaming abilities, and enemies will inevitably see you regardless. The best sections are the flashbacks (the flying escort mission aside), but what's stringing them together is the Superintendent guiding Rookie around because...reasons. I'll grant you that the team did make its mark in the wider universe through Halo 5 and the EU, but that's not something the game itself can really take credit for.

and what I mean by Master Chief being invincible is that he's always the sole survivor of missions. He gets sent in with like a dozen mooks to do a thing, and all the mooks get killed by explosions and energy blades and Master Chief is just strutting around with plot armor, and gameplay wise the mooks are the worst. They cant hit anything, and I'm convinced their guns have been zeroed, and that they can't kill anything. That it was decided the player had to get all the kills, and the NPCs are just for show.

They may have changed that as well, because I recall the marines being fairly decent in taking down enemies. What difficulty did you play it on?

Also, sole survivour? That's kind of par for the course in FPS games. I mean, Halo 2, Halo: Reach, Halo 4, John's doing his sole survivour thing there as well. Halo at least has narrative reasons for it.

Silvanus:

Squilookle:

That's you changing, not the game. If the game played well on release, it does not become more or less so as other games come out. Your perception of it might, but the game itself is the same eternal. (Assuming it's not a live service or endlessly patched post launch game. For those all bets are off).

Well, yeah, but that's all pretty obvious, isn't it? We all know its perception. Nobody is under the impression the games have magically transformed in the intervening years. The thread topic is about perception.

It should be obvious, and yet the phrases used are always 'this game didn't age well' 'why did people like it?' 'controls/looks/sounds like balls' etc. It should be pretty clear it's the player's tastes that have changed rather than the game, but it is never acknowledged to be that way.

Squilookle:

Silvanus:

Squilookle:

That's you changing, not the game. If the game played well on release, it does not become more or less so as other games come out. Your perception of it might, but the game itself is the same eternal. (Assuming it's not a live service or endlessly patched post launch game. For those all bets are off).

Well, yeah, but that's all pretty obvious, isn't it? We all know its perception. Nobody is under the impression the games have magically transformed in the intervening years. The thread topic is about perception.

It should be obvious, and yet the phrases used are always 'this game didn't age well' 'why did people like it?' 'controls/looks/sounds like balls' etc. It should be pretty clear it's the player's tastes that have changed rather than the game, but it is never acknowledged to be that way.

While there are definite truths to what you said. I myself have changed in many tastes, but plenty that are similar or still the same as I was a child. But there are some games that just do not hold up well. Even when you take time period in to account or it's peers from within the same period. Some cases have nothing to do with tastes. I always ask myself this: "Was this game, genre, or series of fun back then as it is today?" There are going to plenty of yes's, plenty of nos, and not a lot of maybes. Each answer depends on the person, what they experienced, and whatever held their interests. So is the way of most media and entertainment.

Squilookle:

Gordon_4:

Squilookle:
As someone who almost never stops playing the games I like, I will never understand people who misremember games. If you don't enjoy a game you used to like, you've got nobody to blame but yourself.

Or sometimes the passage of time allows us to experience the game with different, wiser eyes. Mass Effect is still a great game.....with a combat system that's kind of shit. Also none of the voice actors, aside from maybe Wrex and Garrus had settled into themselves. ME Tali and ME2 Tali are night and day, for example.

That's you changing, not the game. If the game played well on release, it does not become more or less so as other games come out. Your perception of it might, but the game itself is the same eternal. (Assuming it's not a live service or endlessly patched post launch game. For those all bets are off).

Uh, no it isn't. The movement in Mass Effect 1 is less smooth, especially in shooting combat than its successors. Liz Szroka (Tali's voice actress) sounds far more confident in the banter sections and her accent is consistent in Mass Effect 2 onward. That is the game improving over installments, and after playing them I can see areas where ME1 is now deficient. That doesn't make it a bad game, its still a good game but it does have some rough edges.

Gordon_4:

Squilookle:

Gordon_4:

Or sometimes the passage of time allows us to experience the game with different, wiser eyes. Mass Effect is still a great game.....with a combat system that's kind of shit. Also none of the voice actors, aside from maybe Wrex and Garrus had settled into themselves. ME Tali and ME2 Tali are night and day, for example.

That's you changing, not the game. If the game played well on release, it does not become more or less so as other games come out. Your perception of it might, but the game itself is the same eternal. (Assuming it's not a live service or endlessly patched post launch game. For those all bets are off).

Uh, no it isn't. The movement in Mass Effect 1 is less smooth, especially in shooting combat than its successors. Liz Szroka (Tali's voice actress) sounds far more confident in the banter sections and her accent is consistent in Mass Effect 2 onward. That is the game improving over installments, and after playing them I can see areas where ME1 is now deficient. That doesn't make it a bad game, its still a good game but it does have some rough edges.

We're having two completely different conversations here. I'm talking about one game, isolated as it is, and saying if it worked then, it works now. You're saying that games can improve from sequel to sequel. This is perfectly true. The only overlap here is the part we agree on: none of what came after makes an original a bad game.

Gordon_4:
That is the game improving over installments,

And then Andromeda happened...

Squilookle:

We're having two completely different conversations here. I'm talking about one game, isolated as it is, and saying if it worked then, it works now. You're saying that games can improve from sequel to sequel. This is perfectly true. The only overlap here is the part we agree on: none of what came after makes an original a bad game.

I'd say theres a potential for a game to be groundbreaking and impressive in its own time, showing a lot of advancement and potential. And then rendered basically obsolete (by its own sequels or by other games, either or). Theres a ton of games that stand out for interesting concepts, but once you're putting them in a lineup of similar concepts, the execution puts them pretty low on the list. As a mind blowing as RTS's were when they first came out because the scope was insane, if you plop something on the field today where you can only select 4 units and they don't have any distinguishing features other then HP and damage, its going to be ridiculed as the meatless bone it is.

There is also the players experience to consider. Granted that isn't technically the game aging poorly, but a factor of hindsight and such. I thought Dark Rift was great when I actually played it as a kid. I wouldn't say anyone in their right mind even comparing it to its contempoaries in the fighting game genre would be positive on it nowadays.

Tehe games that typically "Age well" are generally those that stuck to basic concepts, or at least used concepts that have become acknowledged as quality ones and integrated into the genre generally. Where a graphical facelift would basically eliminate any difference between playing a current variation and the original variation. The ones that age poorly tend to have been kneecapped by stemic limitations (I noticed DK64 above), or they had concepts that were initially promising but were never fleshed out to a polished state (either in sequeels or influenced games)

Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 for me. It's not so much that the games have aged poorly or anything like that, it's just when I used to play them back in the day I was used to 2nd Ed D&D rules. Over the years I've moved on to other RPG systems and pretty much forgotten 2nd Ed rules. And going back to them for the first time in years? Jeez, it's tough going.

Hawki:

Silentpony:

I guess they changed it 'cause my Puma got destroyed about half-way through the second level where you have to go around rescuing dudes. I had jumped out to kill some elites, and my gunner and sidekick got out to do some shooting, a grunt threw a grenade at them, it exploded, Puma is totaled, friends are dead and I have to walk the rest of the mission. And it was stupid.

Okay, that's definitely a change. And if they changed it on the Silent Cartographer map...poor guy.

And ODST was amazing. The soundtrack was neat, it was mostly nighttime fighting in the rain

Ah yes, it's so fun playing a game where 80% of the time you can't see anything.

with a jazzy soundtrack, so it felt very noir.

And arguably tonally discordant from Halo, but whatever.

I have little love for ODST, and it's easily my least favourite game in the series. The game is basically an expansion to Halo 3, only full priced. It's a weird mix of open world and stealth in the Rookie sections, and fails at both, because you don't really have free roaming abilities, and enemies will inevitably see you regardless. The best sections are the flashbacks (the flying escort mission aside), but what's stringing them together is the Superintendent guiding Rookie around because...reasons. I'll grant you that the team did make its mark in the wider universe through Halo 5 and the EU, but that's not something the game itself can really take credit for.

and what I mean by Master Chief being invincible is that he's always the sole survivor of missions. He gets sent in with like a dozen mooks to do a thing, and all the mooks get killed by explosions and energy blades and Master Chief is just strutting around with plot armor, and gameplay wise the mooks are the worst. They cant hit anything, and I'm convinced their guns have been zeroed, and that they can't kill anything. That it was decided the player had to get all the kills, and the NPCs are just for show.

They may have changed that as well, because I recall the marines being fairly decent in taking down enemies. What difficulty did you play it on?

Also, sole survivour? That's kind of par for the course in FPS games. I mean, Halo 2, Halo: Reach, Halo 4, John's doing his sole survivour thing there as well. Halo at least has narrative reasons for it.

ODST was an expansion to Halo 3; it started as DLC, but evolved into an expansion title and retailed at a modest $30-40; it was never "full priced" or intended to be a standalone, standout Halo iteration; it was just a slight bent on "more Halo 3." ODST certainly isn't the best or a definitive Halo experience when compared to the enumerated releases, but it often gets more flak than it deserves.

Now, Halo 5 and its place/legitimacy within the Halo universe we could debate, but you and I have treaded those waters before, and they are deeply red with blood and the sharks have long since feasted.

I don't know what are you talking about! I had great tastes as a kid and played only the best known games and hidden gems at my reach! /s

Out of joke, I can tell when I enjoyed a game as a kid because of its quality and when it was "despite" of it. At most the graphics get a little embellished in my memory, but besides that I usually remember the quality of such games and what I enjoyed about them. And rarely pick an old game up or watch a video of it and go "Jeez! This game is worse than I remember" (bad games are usually as bad as I remember them)

Grouchy Imp:
Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 for me. It's not so much that the games have aged poorly or anything like that, it's just when I used to play them back in the day I was used to 2nd Ed D&D rules. Over the years I've moved on to other RPG systems and pretty much forgotten 2nd Ed rules. And going back to them for the first time in years? Jeez, it's tough going.

I played Vanilla BG1 way back around the time it first came out and it was....rough. I do want to play through the games leading up to BG3 here pretty soon(So BG1, BG2 and Siege of DragonsSpear) but I know at least BG1 is not going to be an easy ride going back to it now. I suspect I'll be looking up exploits and optimal builds left and right just to survive through to 2, where the real good stuff apparently is.

Before anyone chimes in with "Play it Blind", I don't have to patience to keep party wiping(which I remember was super easy to do) because you picked the wrong build to start with. It's one of the downsides of WRPGs like Balders gate. I had to restart Planescape Torment a few times before I found out it's easier to play as a magic build and you get access to more of the good dialogue to boot.

Seth Carter:
Final Fantasy 7, which I'd gone back over in January before tackling any thoughts on the remake.

While I did recall how badly the pacing falls off after Midgar, I didn't quite recall just how insanely large the gaps of any meaningful progress in the narrative are, and the ludicrously flimsy reasons to push the player around on the "world tour" segment. Or how many times it tries to retwist its plots elements like Shyamalan on a coke bender.

20-30 year turn based ATB combat was never going to shine for depth from a modern lens of course. But I'd also forgotten all the weird janky nonsense with how your builds wre jammed into and limited up by the equipped gear. And the bland interchangeable characters from a tactical sense (a trait it would share with FF8).

How dare you sir!?

I'm just kidding, it aint for everyone. Hopefully you give the Remake a chance.

Dalisclock:

Grouchy Imp:
Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 for me. It's not so much that the games have aged poorly or anything like that, it's just when I used to play them back in the day I was used to 2nd Ed D&D rules. Over the years I've moved on to other RPG systems and pretty much forgotten 2nd Ed rules. And going back to them for the first time in years? Jeez, it's tough going.

I played Vanilla BG1 way back around the time it first came out and it was....rough. I do want to play through the games leading up to BG3 here pretty soon(So BG1, BG2 and Siege of DragonsSpear) but I know at least BG1 is not going to be an easy ride going back to it now. I suspect I'll be looking up exploits and optimal builds left and right just to survive through to 2, where the real good stuff apparently is.

Before anyone chimes in with "Play it Blind", I don't have to patience to keep party wiping(which I remember was super easy to do) because you picked the wrong build to start with. It's one of the downsides of WRPGs like Balders gate. I had to restart Planescape Torment a few times before I found out it's easier to play as a magic build and you get access to more of the good dialogue to boot.

Magic is almost always the way to go in WRPG adapted from tabletop. Magic in tabletop usually work where you can cast each spell a number of time before you take a rest. In table top this is usually controlled by the GM setting set point where the party can rest (or really screwing up the party if they take too many rest mid dungeon). But in video game adaptation you can usually rest whenever you want, so that you can use all your amazing one time a day spell every encounter.

For baldur gate that usually mean running a all mage party with one tank guy who just goes first to stop the enemy for a second while you use all your spell on them to immobilize and then nuke them. I really hope BG3 doesn't let the player rest whenever, the source system from divinity original sin 2 was sorta there attempt to limit these kind of ability, but I don't think it really works. To me the obvious answer is to only let player take rest at set point and make those one off (and have the game always make a save from before the area so that the player can always leave the area if they find out they can't complete it mid dungeon).

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.