don't get me wrong, the Divinity engine is truly unique and awesome. the capability of interacting with one's environment made me a fan of DD and Larian (still smile when i take a look at the house i had "furnished" in DD :P). trying to sell BD as a whole new game with new feature's imo is a let down, even if the title was Riftrunner, the 2 game's are too similar not to compare em. comparing BD to sacred well, apple's and oranges. seeing how sacred is a Diablo clone like soo many other title's, hack fest, heavy character developement geared for combat only, little to no storyline, linear quest's. (hack fest games can be fun, better for online play but should not be classified as an RPG)
if BD was sold or advertised as an extension of DD i wouldn't have been so keen and critical of the game, but it wasn't, that's my personal gripe.
But how completely different are games compared to games? Warcraft builds on the numerous concepts Starcraft pioneered, and I don't think it worth complaining. Saying that BD is just DD with a couple of features thrown in is, IMHO, not doing the designer justice. Why so?
Because we are dealing with a RPG here. We do not pay Larians for just the interface, graphics and music. We are also paying for a storyline, voice-acting and new art to boot. Repetition and recycling are unavoidable. What's commendable is that the Larians have added a compelling twist (the Death Knight) and think of some changes to make the game stand apart from DD.
the difficulty of the game came from the lack of information on equipemnt, lack of storyline (yes lack of a story, if one has played Neverwinter Nights, Knight's of the Republic, the BG or Icewind dale title's, Torment or even more classic titles such as Bard's tale or the Ultima title's, can't forget about the older Wiardry title's, the storyline is seriously lacking.)
As sword sharpens sword, so does mind sharpens mind. KoTR has a compelling storyline, but one of the biggest problem is the linearlity. Actually, anyone who has studied interactive studies could say that linearlity in a computer RPG is an illusion. The developer, at most, can create only two or three paths of significant events. Side-quests, side-storylines, mini-games -- those are just minor detour which has little impact on the main branch. Now Fallout II a good example of the illusion of non-linearlity. Yes, there are a lot of complex NPCs and side-quests, but the main plot remains simple - Save your village. I am not saying that's bad -- I am just saying that it is still an illusion, but heck it makes the game fun. Every game has non-linearity. In Diablo II, you can choose to kill Blood Raven first before attempting the Den of Evil. In Neverwinter Nights, the very first campagin, you can kill the Mind Devourer before finding the Dryad. It does not make an iota of difference, though. There is non-linearity, but there is no impact whatsoever.
The only non-linear thing about DD is how at one point you can stop the main plot and go about having fun till you feel you are ready to resume the plot. Doesn't do much to suspend my disbelief, that's how I see it.
You can feel free to disagree with me, but I don't particularly find NWN or Baldur's Gate story compelling. Cliche is what I called them. Consider BG I's beginning - you are the Chosen One. Your mentor "died" in the first few squences, and have a "Gandalf's Moment of Resurrection" later. NWN is even worst. All the three official campagins never once did try to "hook" you into the game. You are always the observer on the sideline, and you are doing the quests because you are lawful good, or you want experience points and the gold reward.
if BD had a more immersive storyline, where a player could get lost in the history, culture, or feel of the world, than the linear quests' wouldn't be an issue. sadly most current "rpg" game quest's are like this, very few title's have it where one can go thru a deep conversation tree and "solve" the quest by talking or negotiating things out, very few title's....
It is a very unfortunate fact of life that RPG tends to be combat-oriented, due to their wargame roots, and combat is one of life's most obivious conflict. If you are inclined towards such games, I would like to point the way to the Quest for Glory Series, which ends at QFG V - Dragon Fire. However, the game are old and except for the last one, all are DOS-based. QFG is a hybrid of RPG game and adventure games. Fighter will hack and slash to win whereas Magic Users and Thieves have to use a combination of their skills and ingenuity. For example, to clear the path of a big boulder blocking the way, the Magic User cast a Frost Bite spell on it, to freeze it, then cast a Flame Dart spell at it, to make it shatter.
However, those sequences are
scripted. They are just puzzles waiting to be solved, and once solved, are not replayable. Combat,in a sense, is one of the easiest conflict to design and to make varied.
imo if one is looking for a hack fest game, BD is not it, if one is looking for a "tactical" rpg, BD is not it, if one is looking for a truly immersive world to get lost in, BD is not it.
I don't understand the gist of your statements. I afraid when the word "tactical" is invoked, I would not think of history or an immersive world. Chess is very tactical. I don't need to know the evolution of the Queen (from how it could just move one step diagonally to its present form where she can make sweeping moves) to appreciate the game. Likewise, all I need to appreciate the tactical aspect of BD combat is how the damage model works, how can I conquer and divide, what are my back-up plans and etc.
As usual, IMHO.
